In 1994, the chance of getting involved in a fatal accident per kilometre for Dutch ...... considered (Clifford Chance, 2003) that the greatest safety gains will be ...
SUNflower 2: FURTHER COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF ROAD SAFETY IN SWEDEN, UNITED KINGDOM, AND THE NETHERLANDS
David Lynam (TRL), Göran Nilsson (VTI), Peter Morsink (SWOV), Barry Sexton (TRL), Divera Twisk (SWOV), Charles Goldenbeld (SWOV), and Fred Wegman (SWOV)
SWOV, TRL, VTI,
SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, The Netherlands Transport Research Laboratory, United Kingdom National Road and Transport Research Institute, Sweden
ii
Foreword The number of road traffic crashes, fatalities, and casualties is decreasing in all European countries, as in other high-income and highly motorized countries in the world. Despite an ongoing increase of motorization, we manage to reduce the numbers of death and (seriously) injured by investing in the safety quality of the road traffic system. However, the toll of crashes on our roads is still considered as unacceptably high. Almost all European countries are working with road safety targets, expressing their will to improve road safety. The European Commission itself is very ambitious indeed: to halve the number of fatalities during the first decade of the 21st century. The SUNflower concept can be considered as an important contribution to the goal of reducing the road crash toll on our roads. It is based on comparing road safety policies, programmes and road safety performances in different European countries. Building upon a methodology developed by the original SUNflower project, the policies in different countries are compared and trends are identified. The results are of potential value for the countries involved, for other countries, and for the European Union. SUNflower+ offers the possibility for countries to learn from each other and by doing so, to speed up road safety improvements. As the road safety problem is a complex one we need to understand the past as thoroughly as possible in order to learn from it and to even change the future. All who are familiar with this problem know that fast and easy solutions cannot improve road safety in a sustained way. Understanding the past in order to learn for the future is the essence of SUNflower+. The SUNflower methodology is data driven and knowledge based. Comparing policies and trends in different countries is of a very complex nature, never being sure of not overlooking an important factor, or one or two underlying forces. But surprisingly enough, the results are always astonishing, sometimes they confirm prejudices, often they are eye-openers, and sometimes they are groundbreaking. SUNflower started in 1999 and reported its first result with SUNflower: a comparative study of the development of road safety in Sweden, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands in 2002. Based on this SUNflower is considered as a strong brand, appreciated and trusted. An honest and powerful methodology is now available. It was decided to extend this first result and to expand it to SUNflower+6. In this study three groups of countries were formed: the original SUNcountries (Sweden, United Kingdom and the Netherlands), the Central group (Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovenia) and the South group (Greece, Portugal and Spain and Catalonia). In SUNflower+6, a first consideration is given to the impacts of regional road safety actions with the autonomous Region of Catalonia being benchmarked alongside Spain and other countries. A large number of researchers from different countries was involved: David Lynam, Barry Sexton (TRL, United Kingdom), Göran Nilsson (VTI, Sweden), Peter Morsink, Divera Twisk, Willem Vlakveld, Charles Goldenbeld (SWOV, the Netherlands), Vojt?ch Eksler, Jaroslav Heinrich (CDV, Czech Republic), János Gyarmati, Peter Holló (KTI, Hungary), Bruno Bensa, David Krivec, Nina Bolko (OMEGAconsult, Slovenia), Simon Hayes, Susana Serrano (DSD, Catalonia/Spain), Laia Pages Giralt (SCT, Catalonia), Pilar Zori (DGT, Spain), Yannis Handanos, Chryssanthi Lymperi, Dimitris Katsochis (Trademco, Greece), António Lemonde de Macedo, João Lourenço Cardoso, Sandra Vieira Gomes (LNEC, Portugal).
iii
The results are summarized in five documents: - SUN - Central - South - Footprint study - Final report
An extended study of the development of road safety in Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands A comparative study of the development of road safety in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Slovenia A comparative study of the development of road safety in Greece, Portugal, Spain, and Catalonia Development and application of a footprint methodology for the SUNflower+6 countries A comparative study of the development of road safety in the SUNflower+6 countries
In the Foreword of the Sunflower report (2002), I expressed my wish that the study would be used as a model and trigger off further comparable studies. From one study to five, in which nine countries and one autonomous region has participated. I am grateful for that result and I expect for the same success as the initial SUNflower study. I would like to thank the whole SUNflower+6 team. Their task was a very challenging one and everybody worked hard to produce high-quality reports. I am grateful for the European Commission and all our other sponsors in the different participating countries to make this study possible. I do hope the results will find their way to further reduction of the number of casualties on our roads. Fred Wegman
iv
Content FOREWORD
III
CONTENT
VI
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
XII
1 1.1
OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY Introduction
1 1
1.2 Review of current safety situations 1.2.1 Update on targets and strategies 1.2.2 Traffic safety situation in the SUN countries for 2003
2 2 4
2
8
PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
2.1
Introduction
8
2.2
Extent of the problem
8
2.3 Availability, quality and comparability of data 2.3.1 Accident circumstances 2.3.2 Amount and type of walking 2.3.3 Pedestrian facilities 2.3.4 Nature of pedestrian network
9 9 9 10 10
2.4 Country differences in safety levels 2.4.1 Trends in pedestrian accidents 2.4.2 Further analysis of current safety levels 2.4.3 Accident location (Urban/Rural) 2.4.4 Time when pedestrian fatalities occur
10 10 11 14 15
2.5 Interventions to reduce the risk 2.5.1 Crossings and crossing design 2.5.2 Safer pedestrian road environments 2.5.3 Improving pedestrian skills and behaviour
16 16 17 17
2.6 Explanation of differences and/or similarities between the countries 2.6.1 Exposure 2.6.2 Exposure to roads of different risk 2.6.3 Influence of town size 2.6.4 Crossing behaviour 2.6.5 Economically disadvantaged groups 2.6.6 Alcohol involvement in pedestrian accidents 2.6.7 Driver behaviour
18 18 19 20 21 22 22 22
2.7 Conclusions and country specific recommendations 2.7.1 Differences between countries 2.7.2 Reasons for high British fatality rate 2.7.3 Recommendations
24 24 25 25
vi
3 3.1
CYCLIST SAFETY
26
Introduction
26
3.2 Extent of the problem 3.2.1 Sweden 3.2.2 Great Britain 3.2.3 The Netherlands
26 26 26 27
3.3
27
Availability, quality and comparability of data
3.4 Country differences 3.4.1 Variation in amount of cycling 3.4.2 Trends over time of bicyclist fatalities 3.4.3 Monthly variation of injured bicyclists in Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands 3.4.4 Injury rates for females and males and age groups 3.4.5 Fatality rates 3.4.6 Injury severity 3.4.7 Comparison between Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands in 2003
28 30 31 33 34
3.5 Interventions to reduce the risk 3.5.1 Environmental measures 3.5.2 Bicyclist behaviour measures
35 35 36
3.6
Traffic safety regulations for the bicycle and the bicyclists
36
3.7
Explanation of differences and/or similarities between the countries
37
3.8
Conclusion
37
MOPED SAFETY
39
Introduction
39
4 4.1
27 27 28
4.2 Country specific background information 4.2.1 Vehicle types and legislation 4.2.2 Moped usage
39 39 41
4.3 Casualties 4.3.1 Development over time 4.3.2 Age distribution
43 43 45
4.4 Traffic safety rates 4.4.1 Mortality: fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants 4.4.2 Fatalities per 1000 mopeds 4.4.3 Fatalities per million moped kilometres
49 49 49 50
4.5
Discussion on the observed differences
51
4.6
Conclusions
53
5 5.1
MOTORCYCLE SAFETY
55
Introduction
55 vii
5.2 Extent of the problem 5.2.1 In Britain 5.2.2 In Sweden 5.2.3 In the Netherlands
55 56 56 57
5.3
Availability, quality and comparability of data
57
5.4 Country differences in safety levels 5.4.1 Fatal Casualties 5.4.2 Killed or Seriously Injured Casualties 5.4.3 In-depth KSI casualty analysis for motorcycles 5.4.4 Size of bike fleet relative to size of other vehicle fleets
58 58 59 59 64
5.5 Interventions to reduce the risk 5.5.1 Licensing regime 5.5.2 Campaigns
66 66 68
5.6
Explanation of differences and/or similarities between the countries
69
5.7
Conclusions and country specific recommendations
71
6 6.1
YOUNG DRIVER SAFETY
72
Introduction
72
6.2 Magnitude and nature of young driver accidents 6.2.1 Method 6.2.2 How different are the safety levels of young drivers?
72 72 74
6.3
77
Types of accidents in which young/ novice drivers are over- represented
6.4 Differences in attitudes and self-reported behaviour. 6.4.1 Introduction 6.4.2 Method 6.4.3 General changes over time 6.4.4 Young novice drivers: attitudes and behaviour 6.4.5 Conclusions concerning age differences
79 79 79 80 82 87
6.5 Effect of policies and young driver safety 6.5.1 Sweden 6.5.2 United Kingdom 6.5.3 The Netherlands
87 87 88 88
6.6 Conclusions 6.6.1 Similarities 6.6.2 Differences 6.6.3 The effect of interventions
89 89 90 90
7
92
7.1
HEAVY GOODS VEHICLE SAFETY Introduction
92
7.2 Road traffic and accident involvement rates with Heavy Goods Vehicles in Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands 7.2.1 Foreign heavy goods vehicles in Sweden viii
93 93
7.2.2 Foreign heavy goods vehicles in the Netherlands 7.2.3 Foreign heavy goods vehicles in Great Britain
94 95
7.3
Country differences and similarities
95
7.4
Recent interventions to reduce the risk
95
7.5
Discussion of difference and or/similarities between the countries
96
7.6
Conclusions
97
8 8.1
SPEED MANAGEMENT
99
Introduction
99
8.2 Extent of the problem 8.2.1 The basic speed limit situation in Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands 8.2.2 Self reported speeding in SARTRE
99 99 100
8.3 Speed limit systems 8.3.1 Sweden 8.3.2 Great Britain 8.3.3 The Netherlands 8.3.4 Exceeding the speed limit
101 101 102 104 104
8.4 Risks at different speed limits 106 8.4.1 The distribution of fatalities on different speed limits in Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands 106 8.4.2 The estimated severity of accidents at different speed limits in Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands 107 8.4.3 Fatality and injury accident rate for different road classes in Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands 108 8.5 Enforcement and sanctions 8.5.1 Sweden 8.5.2 Great Britain 8.5.3 The Netherlands
109 109 110 111
8.6 Interventions to reduce the accident risk 8.6.1 The experience of speed limit changes in the Netherlands since 1990
111 112
8.7
Explanation of differences and or similarities between the countries.
112
8.8
Conclusions
113
ENFORCEMENT
115
9.1
Introduction
115
9.2
Extent of the problem
115
9.3
Availability, quality and comparability of data
116
9
9.4 Country differences in safety levels 9.4.1 Force size and Organisation ix
117 117
9.4.2 9.4.3 9.4.4 9.4.5
Levels of activity Numbers of offences Effectiveness of enforcement Attitudes to enforcement
118 118 122 123
9.5 Recent interventions to reduce the risk 9.5.1 Penalty points systems 9.5.2 Use of automatic enforcement systems 9.5.3 Intensified national enforcement activities 9.5.4 Linking enforcement to publicity 9.5.5 Reducing motoring offences through action on non-motoring offences 9.5.6 Indications of worsening behaviour
126 126 126 127 128 128 128
9.6
Discussion of differences and/or similarities between the countries
131
9.7
Conclusions and country specific recommendations
132
10
EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF SAFETY POLICIES
134
10.1
Introduction
134
10.2 Implementation of 30 km/h-zones 10.2.1 Extent of the problem 10.2.2 Implementation of 30 km/h-zones in Sweden 10.2.3 Implementation of 20 mp/h-zones in the United Kingdom 10.2.4 Implementation of 30 km/h zones in the Netherlands 10.2.5 Conclusions about implementation
134 134 134 137 140 143
10.3 The implementation of the use of speed cameras 10.3.1 Extent of the problem 10.3.2 The implementation of the use of speed cameras in Sweden 10.3.3 The implementation of speed cameras in the United Kingdom 10.3.4 Implementation of the use of speed cameras in the Netherlands 10.3.5 Conclusions
144 144 144 145 147 148
10.4 The promotion of the use of bicycle helmets 10.4.1 The extent of the problem 10.4.2 The use of bicycle helmets in Sweden 10.4.3 The use of bicycle helmets in the United Kingdom 10.4.4 The use of bicycle helmets in the Netherlands 10.4.5 Conclusions
149 149 150 150 151 152
10.5
General discussion
153
11
CONCLUSIONS
155
11.1
For pedestrian and cyclist safety
156
11.2
For powered two wheeler safety
157
11.3
For young driver safety
157
11.4
For efficient safety management processes
158
11.5
For safety indicators
158 x
11.6
Specific recommendations for the European Commission
159
11.7
Specific recommendations for the SUN countries
160
12
REFERENCES
162
APPENDIX A: THE LIKELY EFFECT OF TRAFFIC FLOW ON THE NATIONAL ACCIDENT RATE
xi
168
Executive Summary The first report of the SUNflower project (Koornstra et al 2002) compared the safety strategies and programmes in Sweden, Britain and the Netherlands in 2000, looking both at forward strategies and the underlying reasons for the trends in traffic safety in each country between 1980 and 2000. Individual case studies were included on policies relating to drinking and driving, seatbelt wearing, low cost infrastructure improvements, and inter-urban road networks. The report identified many general similarities in approach to road safety policy but also identified differences in the way policies had been implemented. Koornstra et al showed that although overall fatality rates in these countries were similar, the rates for individual modes were more varied. They also suggested several further topics which could be investigated to help explain national differences in safety outcomes. This second study extends the investigation of the differences already identified, and explores some of the topics not covered in detail in the first study. Topics covered in this report include an update of current traffic safety situations in the SUN countries as well as case studies of Pedestrian, Cyclist, Mopedist, Motorcyclist, young driver and goods vehicle safety. These are complemented by chapters on speed management and enforcement policies, and on the characteristics that are required for effective implementation of road safety programmes. One factor fundamental to the casualty toll observed in different countries is the split in travel between different modes, as individual modes have very different risk levels. A more complicated, but an equally important factor, is the interaction between the different modes, in relation to network configuration and traffic density. These interactions and their effects are more difficult to quantify than the differences in risk between the individual modes. The overall safety performance, safety management systems, and safety cultures in the three SUN countries are fairly similar, but still individual risk differences have been observed (eg high risks for pedestrians and motorcyclists in Great Britain, for mopedists in the Netherlands, and to a lesser extent for car drivers in Sweden). Role of modal split and traffic density A substantial part of these differences may result from the size of the different road user groups in each country and their interactions with other traffic and with network configuration. Thus, for example, a country such as Sweden, with low traffic densities and a heavy focus on rural car travel, should be expected to have a higher car occupant fatality rate per vehicle km than Britain which has a much higher traffic density, despite the same general safety culture and efficiency of safety management. Similarly, Great Britain, with a higher density of pedestrian movements interacting with a higher density of motorised traffic can be expected to have a substantially higher pedestrian accident rate unless it has implemented special measures to counter this situation. Quantifying these effects is not easy. Estimates in the report suggest that they might explain up to half the difference in car occupant fatality rate between Sweden and Britain and most of the difference in pedestrian fatality rates. The comparison between Britain and the Netherlands is less clear, partly because of uncertainty about relative traffic flows. With the flows assumed, the difference in pedestrian fatality largely disappears but the Dutch car occupant fatality rate appears to be higher than the British rate, once the benefits of the high usage of motorways in the Netherlands has been discounted. However these analyses relate to 2003 fatality rates and the Dutch rates for 2004 appear substantially lower. But much more detailed data and analysis are required to properly explore these effects. xii
Countries can take action to mitigate such innate problems. In the Netherlands, a high level of pedal cycle activity is accommodated at relatively low risk. This appears to have been achieved partly by providing extensive facilities to separate cyclists from motorised traffic and partly by managing the motorised traffic on these roads so that they limit the conflicts that might lead to serious cyclist injuries. The same situation has not been achieved in the Netherlands for mopedists or in Britain for pedestrians. In a parallel context, Sweden, with long sparsely trafficked rural routes, has been unable to discourage speeding among car drivers to the extent achieved in the other two countries. Progress in casualty reduction Between 2000 and 2003 progress in fatality reduction had stalled in Sweden and Britain. In Sweden, where casualty reduction targets are defined in terms of fatalities, this is likely to seriously compromise the achievement of these targets unless new initiatives can be found. Political will and funding does not seem to be at a level where it will encourage these to a sufficient extent. In Britain, where the target is in terms of fatalities and seriously injured casualties, the continued downward trend in the latter suggests this target is more likely to be met. In the Netherlands there has been a continuing small downward trend in fatalities and this appears to have accelerated significantly in 2004, although the reason for this is not yet understood. In Sweden and Britain results for 2004 also show a reduction in fatalities (8% for Britain and 9% for Sweden), although again not yet fully understood. Despite these more promising results, concern still exists about the lack of total reduction in fatalities since 2000, and the three countries are currently not contributing substantially to the European fatality reduction target. The investigations that have so far been made in Britain into the difference between fatality trends and serious injury trends do not suggest that change in reporting practice (ie lower reporting of serious injuries) is a substantive factor in the difference. Rather there are many small factors which together are leading to higher likelihood of a fatal outcome when accidents occur, including changes in driver behaviour and in the mix of the vehicle fleet. These may suggest that at the level of safety already achieved by the three SUN countries and others, a further change in safety culture is required both in management systems and in individual behaviour, before further larger reductions in fatalities can be achieved. Lack of reduction in the annual number of fatalities in Great Britain has also been affected by significant growth in motorcycling, which carries a relatively high risk of fatal accident involvement. Other factors affecting risk to pedestrians and cyclists There appears to be less walking per person in the Netherlands than in Sweden and Great Britain; this is particularly so among older children and adults possibly because of the more extensive use of bicycles. Fatality risk per distance walked in Great Britain is about twice that in Sweden and 30% higher than that in the Netherlands. The network and traffic related explanations for these differences are supported by the similar inflated level of risk across all age ranges. In most other ways, pedestrian activity in Britain appears relatively similar to that in the other two countries, although there appears to be a slightly higher proportion of pedestrian fatalities in Britain with high levels of alcohol in their blood. There appears to be no evidence of less attention being given to pedestrian safety education and pedestrian training in Britain. The same factors are likely to influence cyclist fatality risk in Britain, which is double that in the other two countries. It is also clear that in Sweden and the Netherlands the road environment has been planned with more consideration of bicycle use for many years. Although Sweden has recently introduced a bicycle helmet wearing law for children, it has xiii
not had a major effect on the numbers of cyclist fatalities; deaths among elderly cyclists contribute to most of all age groups to the national fatality total. Other factors affecting risk to powered two-wheeler riders In the Netherlands, the moped fatality share and mortality rate are much higher than in Sweden and the UK. In all countries fatalities among the 15-19 age group contribute a disproportionate amount of all moped fatalities. 15-17 year olds contribute a large share of the moped kilometrage in both Sweden and the Netherlands. Dutch fatality rates per moped km are 1.6 times higher than the Swedish and 2 times higher than the British. In the 15-17 age band, Dutch fatality rates are 4 times higher than Swedish rates. In Sweden, access is allowed to mopeds at age 15, in the Netherlands and Britain the access age is 16. In Sweden and the Netherlands, no moped licence exists and only minimal training applies. Britain requires basic training and the use of registration plates; but numbers of mopedists are relatively small. The low general traffic rates in Sweden, compared with Britain and the Netherlands, and the low level of moped use during the winter may partly explain why this relatively easy earlier access to mopeds does not produce the higher risk seen in the Netherlands. The general improvement in safety trends in the Netherlands over the last decade has not been mirrored by similar improvements in moped risk; the combination of vehicle and user characteristics and the lack of a dedicated infrastructure, as has been provided for cyclists, has hindered progress for this user group. Britain has fewer motorcycles per head of population, or motorcycles as a proportion of traffic flow per year but has the highest number of kilometres travelled per machine. Britain has a fatality rate per motorcycle km which is 50% higher than that in the Netherlands and double that in Sweden. The high fatality rate among younger riders may be a factor in these differences, as this group potentially comprise a lower proportion of riders in the Netherlands due to high moped use. But the motorcyclist fatality rate for 25-49 year olds in Britain and the Netherlands is also substantially higher than that in Sweden. These age groups are more likely to be using larger bikes. The involvement of older motorcyclists on larger bikes appears to be highest in Britain, although there is evidence that this group is also rising in Sweden and the Netherlands. The reason why this group should have such a low fatality rate in Sweden is not clear but it may be associated with the relatively sparser road network and lower traffic density. There is some indication that the size of the motorcyclist population as a proportion of total traffic flow might account for an increase of one third in GB rates compared with the Netherlands and one half compared with Sweden. Differences in young driver safety Young drivers in the Netherlands have the worst safety record of the three countries. A possible explanation for the high accident risk for novice driver compared to Sweden and the UK is that young drivers have spent fewer hours behind the wheel before they do the driving test. The reason for this is that so far accompanied driving before the driving test has been legally forbidden in the Netherlands. Risk among male drivers is higher than for female drivers and generally becoming worse, probably as a result of changes in lifestyle. Young male drivers are more likely to drive late at night and although the use of alcohol hasn't increased in the past decade, the use of illicit party drugs has. From reported behaviour, speeding appears to be more of a problem among younger drivers in the UK and the Netherlands than in Sweden. There appears little evidence that any of the special measures aimed at novice drivers have had any substantial impact.
xiv
Influence of speed management policies The Netherlands has been particularly successful over the last two decades in improving the safety of vulnerable road users on the urban network both through physical treatment of 60 km/h roads and through extensive introduction of 30 km/h zones. Greater variation in road network characteristics and higher traffic levels have led to a less clearly defined speed management system in Great Britain than in the other two countries. Changes to the rural single carriageway speed limit system in Britain are being considered but a substantive change in planning speed management is only likely to result from a reduction in the overall speed limit together with the definition of a larger network of higher speed strategic roads of appropriate standard. In urban areas, implementation of lower speeds in residential areas is less well advanced in Britain partly because of pressure from the heavier traffic flows. Speeding is most prominent on rural roads in Sweden, although high proportions of drivers exceed speed limits in urban areas in all three countries. At the same time automatic speed enforcement methods are only just beginning to be implemented in Sweden. Automatic enforcement with fixed penalty fines is particularly widespread in the Netherlands; 70 speeding offences per 100 drivers were recorded in 2002. There are indications in Britain that extensive use of automation may be undermining public confidence and not modifying behaviour in the way intended. Effective implementation and enforcement of safety policies There is evidence from all three countries of rising trends in some extreme behaviours such as drinking and driving, hit and run accidents, causing death by dangerous driving and aggravated theft of motor vehicles. In the Netherlands, police enforcement was intensified between 1999 and 2003. In Britain there are plans for more intensified police enforcement activity but much reliance is being placed on detecting motoring offences through targeting more general offending patterns. Implementation of efficient and effective safety policies needs not only strong governmental support but clear guidelines set and budgets provided for the local authorities which will deliver many of these policies. In addition policies need to be seen as fair and balanced and this is best achieved through citizen participation in preparation of the policies. A communication strategy to encourage constructive debate is important so that policies can stand criticism from vocal minorities. Specific recommendations for the European Commission The Commission should • note that on the basis of current trends, despite encouraging reductions in 2004, Sweden and Great Britain are unlikely to contribute their “share” of the European fatality reduction target for 2010. • be aware that national fatality rates appear to be influenced strongly by network characteristics and traffic levels in different countries, and these should be taken into account when assessing what future rates might be achieved. Further methodological work on this topic should be encouraged. • continue to encourage major initiatives in modifying urban road layouts as vulnerable road user rates are unlikely to fall substantially without these unless exposure is reduced through less activity • note that little progress has been made over the last decade in reducing fatality rates among young drivers and encourage more initiatives in this area xv
•
• • •
encourage further effort to educate motorcyclists about risks and teach them effective strategies for riding more safely, noting particularly the safety issues associated with older drivers taking up motorcycling either for the first time or after a long break raise awareness of work-related road risk, including its role in the involvement of foreign HGVs in national fatalities be aware that there is some evidence beginning to emerge of worsening behaviour among some groups of road users and potentially negative influences from changes in the vehicle fleet that will erode casualty reductions encourage strong and accountable links between central governments and local authorities and increasing public participation in policy definition in order to deliver efficient and effective safety measures that are seen as fair by the majority of road users.
Specific recommendations for the SUN countries Sweden should • make the transport environment more forgiving, to reduce injuries when accidents occur; this could reduce the high proportion of elderly pedestrian and cyclist fatalities and also reduce injuries among elderly car occupants • consider more efforts to improve public acceptance of enforcement initiatives possibly through more community partnerships. There would seem to be the opportunity to increase the use of automatic detection, mainly of speeding offenders. But increased enforcement also needs a change in the legislative system concerning both fines and vehicle owner responsibility to be as effective as possible • seek in the longer term to move to a lower speed limit for two lane rural roads, and develop a network of higher quality rural roads which can safely sustain higher speed limits Britain should • continue to encourage increased use of 20mph zones in areas having high pedestrian accident rates • focus more effort on seeking innovative road designs which cater for mixed vehicular and vulnerable road user activities at the higher traffic flow levels evident in Britain • continue to seek ways of reducing the higher risk associated with pedestrians during the evenings which mainly arises as a result of the pedestrian’s excessive consumption of alcohol • improve facilities for cycling, especially in the context of the Government’s desire to increase cycling • give more attention (than many other countries) to helping drivers recognise the presence and behaviour of motorcyclists within the traffic flow, and give particular attention to countermeasures to reduce bend and overtaking accidents involving motorcyclists. • ensure that the latest policy statements on enforcement promising greater visible presence are accompanied by sufficient resources to achieve this. Ensure that senior police managers demonstrate a genuine commitment to road safety by maintaining an appropriate level of traffic policing • improve its package of drink drive measures and particularly increase the real level of detection to the perceived level. The increasing number of speeding offences also suggests that the balance between enforcement and public awareness might be improved. • seek in the longer term to move to a lower speed limit for two lane rural roads, and develop a network of higher quality rural roads which can safely sustain higher speed limits; through this approach there should be clearer separation in Britain between the road standards (and speed limit bands) in the rural network. xvi
The Netherlands should • continue to increase the share of 30km/h roads in urban areas, and make pedestrian crossing design more consistent with road categories • seek measures to reduce the high proportion of pedestrian fatalities involving mopeds • continue to provide for physical separation of cyclists and motorized traffic on main roads and traffic calming measures at intersections • increase the training required by moped riders aged 16-17 before access to the road, increase (correct) helmet wearing rates, and introduce a more structure licensing system and vehicle registration plates to help enforcement of the behaviour of this group especially regarding speeding • seek ways of increasing the experience gained by young drivers before they take the driving test, including considering accompanied driving before the driving test • seek ways to make the road environment further comply with relevant speed limits and investigate particularly the situation on 80 km/h roads which have a high fatality risk • consider whether the very high level of speeding offences suggests that a different approach to modifying speeding behaviour might be needed. Greater focus on enforcement of repeat or extreme offenders should be considered.
xvii
1 Objectives and methodology of the study 1.1 Introduction The first report of the SUNflower project (Koornstra et al 2002) compared the safety strategies and programmes in Sweden, Britain and the Netherlands in 2000, looking both at forward strategies and the underlying reasons for the trends in traffic safety in each country between 1980 and 2000. Individual case studies were included on policies relating to drinking and driving, seatbelt wearing, low cost infrastructure improvements, and inter-urban road networks. The report identified many general similarities in approach to road safety policy but also identified differences in the way policies had been implemented. Koornstra et al showed that although overall fatality rates in these countries were similar, the rates for individual modes were more varied. They also suggested several further topics which could be investigated to help explain national differences in safety outcomes. This second study extends the investigation of the differences already identified, and explores some of the topics not covered in detail in the first study. It is part of a larger study which aims to use the SUNflower approach to develop indicators for use across wide range of countries. The first study used a pyramid hierarchy (Fig 1.1) as the basis for defining road safety systems, highlighting the importance of investigation at several levels and from several viewpoints. This focus is continued in this study, and provides the basis for extending the work to more general indicators.
Social costs
Per country and per component
Number killed and injured
Safety performance indicators
Safety measures and programmes
Structure and culture
Figure 1.1.Target pyramid: target hierarchy for road safety at a disaggregate level Topics covered in this report include an update of current traffic safety situations in the SUN countries (in 1.2 below) as well as case studies of pedestrian, cyclist, mopedist, motorcyclist, young driver and goods vehicle safety. These are complemented by chapters on speed management and enforcement policies, and on the characteristics that are required for effective implementation of road safety programmes.
1
1.2 Review of current safety situations The first SUNflower report (Koornstra et al, 2002) mainly described traffic safety developments in the three countries during the period 1980 to 2000. All three countries had prepared targets for future casualty reduction and proposed strategies by which to try to achieve these targets. The dates of these targets were 2007 for Sweden and 2010 for Britain and the Netherlands; in addition the European Commission has proposed a European-wide target for 2010. We are now several years into the periods during which these targets were to be achieved, so it is appropriate to give a brief review of national developments and progress toward the target. The traffic safety situation in 2000 was also described numerically in Chapter 3 of the earlier report. Key tables are updated using 2003 data in section 1.2.2. 1.2.1
Update on targets and strategies
1.2.1.1 Sweden The national target in Sweden in 1990 for the year of 2000 was 600 fatalities. This target was reached in 1994 and a revised target was then 400 fatalities in the year of 2000. Although this target was not met, a new target was presented for the year of 2007 – half of the number of killed in 1996 or 270 fatalities in the year of 2007. From detailed analysis of the number of fatalities since the year of 1996, it is difficult to predict any traffic safety improvement concerning fatalities during the period 1996-2004. Note that death due to illness is excluded for the whole period. Since 2003 deaths due to illness are excluded from the official national statistics. The variation that has occurred is associated with traffic development as the annual improvement in traffic safety is more stable if no “dramatic” safety measures are introduced in a certain year. The traffic safety work in Sweden during the last decade is characterised by traditional road and vehicle improvements. The resulting traffic safety effect manages to balance the effect of the traffic and speed increase. As no important speed decreasing measures - e.g. increased enforcement, higher fines or other sanctions or lower speed limits – have been introduced, the traffic safety situation is more or less constant. One relevant factor is that moped and motorcycle usage has increased during the period with increasing number of fatalities among mopedists and motorcyclists. The possibility of reaching the target of 270 fatalities in 2007 has not been helped by the politicians, who have restricted the scope for introduction of traffic safety measures by the road and legal authorities. Perhaps the politicians have regarded the acceptance of the Vision Zero as a measure which is enough in order to solve the traffic safety problem? A lot of traffic safety measures have been taken in the local areas each year during the period, both on rural roads (medium barriers and side barriers) and in urban areas (introduction of 30 km/h and separation measures for vulnerable road users and cars). The total effect of these measures is unfortunately not enough to produce a continuously decreasing trend in fatalities, which is the primary goal regardless of what actual year-based targets are set.
1.2.1.2 Britain The Department of Transport (DfT, 2004) have published a detailed review of progress over the first three years of the road safety strategy for the period 2000-2010. The review was supported by detailed analysis of the underlying casualty data by TRL. 2
The main British target is in terms of numbers of fatalities and seriously injured (KSI) casualties combined. The review concluded that the KSI total is on a downward trend that is only 2.4% less than that needed to be on the notional trajectory to the target. It was noted that motorcyclists continue to be disproportionately represented in casualty numbers. A secondary target is to reduce the number of child KSIs by 50%; progress on this is already two thirds towards the target, after only one third of the time period. A further supplementary target is to reduce the slight casualty rate. This target has already been exceeded in terms of reported accidents but there is concern that reporting rates have reduced noticeably since the target was set. Despite these apparent encouraging trends, serious concern was expressed at the levelling off in the previously reducing annual number of road accident fatalities. Analysis showed that this is mainly a result of the continuing high number of car occupant and motorcyclist fatalities. Broughton (2005) has subsequently explored these trends in detail, and some results from his study are reported in Chapter 9. 1.2.1.3 Netherlands The last decade has shown a continuing small downward trend in fatality numbers. In the 2000-2003 period, however, this was not very apparent. The number of fatalities was rather constant at a level of 1000 each year, with 2003 as the worst. The year 2004 again showed a significant decline. This is a hopeful signal, although the reasons are not yet understood, in the current state of affairs. . In 2003, the resulting social costs of traffic accidents are estimated at 9 billion Euro per year (2% of the GNP). In 2004 a new national traffic and transport plan has been presented by the Ministry of Traffic, Transport and Water Management. Although road transport safety has not been positioned as the most challenging area, the objective is to achieve a continuous improvement of traffic safety in order to keep the Netherlands at the top of the EU safety ranking. Safety targets have been put to 900 fatalities (-15%) in 2010 and 640 (-40%) in 2020. These numbers are considered real fatality numbers, which means that they are police recorded fatalities with a correction based on registration deficiencies (approximately 8%). These targets are far less ambitious than that presented by the European Commission (15 countries) of -50% fatalities in 2010. As part of the traffic and transport plan, ongoing work on traffic safety is proposed eg via measures to influence driver behaviour, changes to the infrastructure, the use of innovative technology and through (inter) national agreement. Consistent application of the principles of the Sustainable Safety concept in policy will be aimed at, since they have earned the credits for much of the safety increase of recent years. The currently developed update of the concept can be a firm base for new policy and measures. In current traffic and transport policy, responsibilities are shifted progressively from central to local governments. Furthermore traffic and transport policy is mainly organised per sector instead of in an integrated way. For the future however a more integrated approach is anticipated combining the policy areas of traffic safety, network optimisation, environment and spatial planning. The role of the decentralised governments will be further emphasised.
3
1.2.1.4 SUN countries together
Index of fatalities (1996=100)
The situation since 1998 seems to be similar in Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands
120 100 80 60
Sweden
40
Great Britain
20
Netherlands
0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year
Figure 1.3 The annual development of the number of fatalities in Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands (police recorded) In all three countries there was some positive development 1996-1998 but from 1998-2003 the number of police reported fatalities only decreased in the Netherlands. However, figures for 2004 show a substantial decrease in the number of fatalities in all three countries (Sweden 9%, Britain 8% and the Netherlands 20%) In the years prior to 2004, for all three countries the “normal” annual decrease in the number of fatalities had more or less vanished. Even if the traffic safety situation was the best in the world in the three countries the traffic safety improvements must continue in order to maintain this position. In all countries the proportion of car occupant fatalities is increasing as is the proportion of car drivers among all fatalities. The question is when society and the car producers realize this problem. Up till now the reduction of the number of fatalities in traffic has mainly resulted from the decreasing number of fatalities among vulnerable road users. One current problem is the increasing use of mopeds and motorcycles – it is not clear if this will continue or is just a periodic variation. Efforts to restrict the use of cars (or motor vehicles) for different reasons (safety, pollution, economy, oil consumption) and construct other more effective and safe transport facilities is at the moment concentrated on redesigning cars to use less oil but not less fuel. The trend of having smaller or lighter cars with less consumption of fuel as in the beginning of the nineties has disappeared. An important question is how long the countries can afford to meet the demands from the motorized society at the cost of education, medical treatment and care of old people. 1.2.2
Traffic safety situation in the SUN countries for 2003
1.2.2.1 Casualty numbers and national rates The reported data for the overall road safety comparison between Sweden, the United Kingdom (actually the data for Great Britain, without Northern Ireland), and the Netherlands are given for 2003 in Table 1.1.
4
2000
Fatalities
Severely injured
Slightly injured
Motor Vehicle km. Motor vehicles vehicles (billion) per inhabitant (million) 8.976 4.998 75 0.56
Population (million)
Sweden
529
4664
22439
UK(GB)
3508
44078
272292
57.900
31.097
490
0.54
Netherlands
1028
9970
27380
16.193
8.890
135
0.52
Table 1.1. Basic data of Sweden, Great Britain, and the Netherlands for 2003 It is generally accepted that reporting rates and definitions of fatalities are reasonably consistent between the three countries. However Sweden has changed their definition of fatalities slightly since 2001, excluding fatalities caused by sudden sickness. From these data the fatality rates (the road traffic fatalities per amount of inhabitants, motor vehicles or motor vehicle kilometres) can be calculated, as shown in Table 1.2. Fatality rates Sweden UK(GB) Netherlands
Per Population (hundred thousand) 5.89 6.06 6.35
Per Motor vehicles (ten thousand) 1.06 1.13 1.16
Per Motor vehicle km (billion) 7.05 7.16 7.61
Table 1.2. Fatality rates in Sweden, Great Britain, and the Netherlands for 2003 Since 2000, the fatality rate per population in Britain has increased slightly and the fatality rates per vehicle km for Sweden and the Netherlands have decreased resulting in the rates for the three countries being even more similar. The three countries continue to have among the best traffic safety situation in the world. 1.2.2.2 Rates for individual road users In Table 1.3 the fatality distribution by road users is presented together with the fatality rates, where the fatalities are related to million motor vehicle kilometre and to million-person kilometre travelled on the roads.
5
Road User Sweden
Car occupant Lorry occupant Bus occupant Motorcyclist Mopedist Cyclist Pedestrian Other All killed
Road User the UK(GB)
Car occupant Lorry occupant Bus occupant Motorcyclist Mopedist Cyclist Pedestrian Other All killed
Fatality Fatality risk Vehicle Fatality Person Fatalities Distribution Distribution Kilometrage Rate Kilometrage 9 9 9 9 Road users 75*10 vkm 10 vkm 10 vkm 10 pkm
346 22 10 47 9 35 55 5 529
65.4% 4.2% 1.9% 8.9% 1.7% 6.6% 10.4% 0.9% 100%
4.61 0.29 0.13 0.63 0.12 0.47 0.73 0.07 7.05
61.7 11.5 1.1 1.1 0.4
5.6 1.9 9.5 43.1 25 3 3
75
50.4% 3.3% 0.3% 19.1% 0.7% 3.2% 22.1% 0.9% 100%
3.61 0.24 0.02 1.37 0.05 0.23 1.58 0.06 7.16
393 86.4 5.4 5.6 0.4
8 0 95 94 188 97 8 1028
0.8% 0% 9.2% 9.1% 18.3% 9.4% 0.8% 100%
0.06 0 0.71 0.70 1.40 0.72 0.06 7.67
27 0.7 1.7 0.9
Fatality Rate 9 10 pkm
0.3 0 55.9 104.4 13.8 3.2
135
25.3 38.7
7.16
Fatality Vehicle Fatality risk Fatality Person Distribution Kilometrage Road User Fatalities Distribution Rate Kilometrage 9 9 10 vkm 10 vkm the Netherlands 9 9 9 135*10 vkm 10 vkm 10 pkm road users estimated Car occupant 538 52.3% 4.01 105 5.1
Lorry occupant Bus occupant Motorcyclist Mopedist Cyclist Pedestrian Other All killed
Fatality Rate 9 10 pkm
4.5 1.3 2.0 120.3 60.0 4.5 20
490
11.7 18.3
7.05
Fatality Fatality risk Vehicle Fatality Person Fatalities Distribution Distribution Kilometrage Rate Kilometrage 9 9 9 9 Road users 490*10 vkm 10 vkm 10 vkm 10 pkm
1769 116 11 669 24 114 774 31 3508
Fatality Rate 9 10 pkm
13.6 30.3
7.61
Table 1.3. Fatality distribution, vehicle and person exposure and fatality rates for different modes 2003 In Table 1.3 some of the differences between the countries became more obvious. Sweden has a large fatality rate among car occupants and 65 % of the fatalities are car occupant fatalities. In 2003 some bad bus accidents happened. The high fatality rate for car occupants is compensated by lower rates for two-wheelers and pedestrians. Great Britain has very low fatality rates for cars, buses and lorries but very high fatality rates for two-wheelers and pedestrians. 19 % of the fatalities refer to motorcyclists. The risk problems in the Netherlands are mainly fatalities among mopedists and pedestrians. Cyclists are a big group and constitute 18 % of the fatalities in the Netherlands
6
Number of fatalities per million vehicle km
Compared with the 2000 figures, Britain appears generally for vulnerable road user rates to have improved slightly in relation to the Netherlands but worsened in relation to Sweden. However the rates based on individual years should be treated with caution because of the small numbers associated with some groups. Car occupant rates reduced most over the period in Sweden.
6
Car occupant Lorry occupant
5 4 3 2 1 0 Sweden
Great Britain
Netherlands
Number of fatalities per million kilometre travelled
Figure 1.4 The number of fatalities per million vehicle kilometres for car occupants and lorry occupants in Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands
140 120
Sweden Great Britain Netherlands
100 80 60 40 20 0 Motorcyclist
Mopedist
Cyclist
Pedestrian
Figure 1.5 The number of fatalities per million kilometres travelled for motorcyclists, mopedists, cyclists and pedestrians in Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands
7
2 Pedestrian safety 2.1 Introduction The report of the first SUNflower project (Koornstra et al, 2002) suggested that pedestrian safety is worse in Britain both in terms of the proportion of fatalities and the risk per distance walked. This chapter will explore these differences in more detail and seek factors which might explain them.
2.2 Extent of the problem Pedestrian deaths in Britain represent double the proportion of total deaths compared with the other two countries. Two thirds of all deaths in Sweden and Britain are associated with collisions with cars, but not much over half of all deaths in the Netherlands. 11% of collisions in the Netherlands are with two wheeled motor vehicles compared with only 5 % and 2% in Britain and Sweden, the difference being due to the large number of moped collisions in the Netherlands. There are also a slightly greater proportion of collisions with buses, trams and trains in Netherlands 12%, compared with 10% in Sweden and 7% in Britain, although the majority of these are associated with collisions with trams in the Netherlands, which are not recorded in the other countries due to their infrequence . Pedestrian deaths in collision with: Car SWEDEN Number
Lorry
M’cycle /moped
Bus
Tram /train
49
13
7
2
8.3 67
2.2 18
1.2 10
0.4 2
590
148
60
44
% all deaths % pedestrian deaths NL Number
17.3 69
4.3 17
1.8 7
1.3 5
58
23
4
11
% all deaths % pedestrian deaths
5.4 54
2.1 22
0.4 4
1.1 11
% all deaths % pedestrian deaths GB Number
Other
Not recorded
Total
2
73
0.3 3
12.4 100
10
857
0.3 3
25.1 100
8
2
106
0.7 8
0.2 2
9.8 100
Not recorded
Table 2.1. Collision matrices involving pedestrians (2000) The proportion of pedestrians deaths in Britain compared to deaths by all modes is 2.6 that in the Netherlands and 2.1 that in Sweden. This proportion in relation to the Netherlands is relatively similar for different age groups (Table 2.2), but varies in relation to Swedish figures from 3.1 more deaths involving young pedestrians (age under 25) to only 60% more deaths involving the elderly (aged over 64).
8
Under age 25 Sweden Britain Netherlands
Age 25-64
1.8 5.5 2.4
Over 64
4.2 10.1 4.0
Total 5.9 9.5 3.4
12.0 25.1 9.8
Table 2.2. Pedestrian deaths by age as percentage of deaths by all modes Data available on distance walked in the three countries compared with numbers of pedestrian deaths suggests death rate in Britain is almost twice that in the other two countries. Accurate exposure data are very difficult to obtain, but the estimates used here appear to show relatively similar distances walked per head of population in the three countries. Data from the National Travel Survey on distance walked in the Netherlands for years after 1998 in the Netherlands has been used. Estimates prior to 1998 included assumptions /corrections which suggested a distance some 50% higher than the current estimate (the latter distance is quoted in table 2.3). This increases the risk per distance walked in the Netherlands above that estimated in Koornstra et al (2002), and reduces the apparent difference between the risk rate in Britain and the Netherlands.
Sweden Britain Netherlands
Table 2.3
2.3
Distance walked 1000 million person km 3 20 3
Deaths per 1000 million person kms
Population million
24.3 42.9 33.1
Person km per population
8.9 58.1 15.9
337 344 201
Pedestrian fatality risk related to distance walked
Availability, quality and comparability of data
To investigate pedestrian risk more accurately, more detailed data are required on • Accidents by circumstance • Amount and type of walking • Provision of facilities to improve safety of pedestrians • The nature of the road network on which pedestrians travel 2.3.1 Accident circumstances There is fairly good data available from accident statistics in the three SUN countries on the general circumstances surrounding accidents involving pedestrians. The main limitations arise in the lack of consistency in the ways in which the circumstances have been categorised and the definitions of the categories. Thus although, with a few limitations, there are data on factors such as age which can be compared, information regarding what the pedestrian was doing and their location at the time of the accident is coded differently in the three countries. 2.3.2 Amount and type of walking Exposure data are not collected on a regular basis. Where it is available, it is usually through national travel surveys which ask how much walking is done. Typically this is considered separately for walking as a main mode and walking as part of a journey by other modes. This separation is important as it can be seen, for example in the Netherlands, that walking as a main mode has decreased while walking as a part of a multimode journey has increased. The amount of walking is very limited as an indicator of exposure as it shows nothing about the nature of the walking (eg numbers and types of roads crossed during walking trips) which has an important influence on the likely safety outcome. This data, where available, is obtained from specific detailed surveys of the detailed walking habits of 9
population samples, usually within a particular sample town. This data appears to be more available in Britain, where pedestrian safety has long been a focus of concern, than in the other two SUN countries. 2.3.3 Pedestrian facilities Information of the number, type and density of facilities is very limited. Where it is available it has usually been collected for a particular sample network. Data on the use of different types of pedestrian facility are also lacking in the general literature, although numbers of casualties occurring at different types of crossing are well documented. 2.3.4 Nature of pedestrian network One of the factors of interest is the design of the road network. Networks and housing layout designed at different times have radically different road alignments, widths and densities of junctions and the way in which traffic use them is known to differ substantially. More recent use of lower speed limits for various types of residential area also results in a very different environment for pedestrians. While there is some limited indication of the spread of recent best practice, for example the adoption of 30 kph zones, broader information on the proportions of the road stock designed to different standards, or with different remedial treatments, is not readily available. Again, what is available is likely to result from in-depth surveys of small areas.
2.4 Country differences in safety levels It is clear from both accident data and exposure data that both travel patterns and risk are very different for different age groups. Initially we will consider data for pedestrians as a composite group, but, where available, data will be presented separately for children, adults, and the elderly. In many cases however, breakdowns may only be available for categories chosen in particular studies; nevertheless, the differences are likely to be sufficiently important to still classify the three groups separately, even if the age thresholds are slightly different for different sources. 2.4.1 Trends in pedestrian accidents The trends in fatalities per head of population vary markedly for the three countries. Between 1980 and 1990, this rate halves in the Netherlands while reducing by only about 15% in Britain and staying relatively constant in Sweden. The reduction in the Netherlands continued until the mid 1990s. Although perhaps 10-15% of the Dutch urban residential roads were converted to 30 km/h zones during this period, the total savings in accidents on these roads is only likely to have been about 4-6% (see Chapter 10 for more information); the biggest reduction therefore must have been on roads where the speed limit remained at 50kph. The rate of reduction in Britain increased noticeably in the early 1990s, reducing by 50% between 1990 and 2000. Again this coincides with an increase in traffic calming, but other factors are also likely to have influenced the totals. The rate in all three countries has fallen more slowly since the mid-1990s; the rate In Britain remains more than double that of Sweden and the Netherlands.
10
40.0 35.0 30.0 25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0
SWE
GB
02 20
00 20
98 19
96 19
94 19
19
92
90 19
88 19
86 19
84 19
19
19
82
0.0
80
Fatalities per million population
Pedestrian Fatality Rates 1980 - 2003
NL
Figure 2.1 Trends in pedestrian fatality rates 1980 – 2003 2.4.2 Further analysis of current safety levels This section will seek to compare fatality and all injury rates more fully by • age, • road type, • weekday/weekend, time of day, time of year, • speed limit of road Comparison of absolute rates is only valid for fatalities, but numbers are small for disaggregated groups. Percentage distributions across factors such as age may also yield useful insights, although it is clear from the datasets illustrated below that distributions of fatalities do not follow the same patterns as distributions of all casualties.
11
Fatally injure d pe de strians by age group 50.0% 45.0%
Proportion of all pedestrian fatalities
40.0% 35.0% 30.0% GB SWE
25.0%
NL 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0 to 3
4 to 6
7 to 9 10 to 12 13 to 15 16 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 and over Age group
Kille d and se riously injure d pe de strians by age group
Proportion of all KSI pedestrian casualties
25.0%
20.0%
15.0% GB SWE NL 10.0%
5.0%
0.0% 0 to 3
4 to 6
7 to 9
10 to 12 13 to 15 16 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 and over Age group
12
Injure d pe de strians (all se v e ritie s) by age group 16.0%
Proportion of all pedestrian casualties
14.0%
12.0%
10.0% GB 8.0%
SWE NL
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0% 0 to 3
4 to 6
7 to 9
10 to 12 13 to 15 16 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 to 74 75 and over Age group
Figure 2.2 Percentage of pedestrian casualties by age Figure 2.2 shows that the distribution of casualties by age is very different for different casualty severities ( British data relate to 2002, but data for 2000-2002 has been averaged for the other two countries due to the small annual total number of casualties) . A substantial proportion of pedestrian fatalities occur among the highest age group in all countries, although this varies from 25% of all pedestrian fatalities in Britain to 40% of all fatalities in Sweden. When serious casualties are also included, this age group remains dominant in Sweden but much less so in Britain and the Netherlands, which may reflect differences in the range of injuries included under the serious injury definition in Sweden. The distributions of non-fatal casualties show the high proportion of casualties in the 10-15 age group in Britain compared with the other two countries. There is higher proportion of casualties among the 4 to 6 age group in the Netherlands than in the other two countries. The relevance of these casualty proportions however will only be fully clear when they are combined with exposure measures (section 2.6.1). In the absence of more detailed exposure data, a simple comparison is provided by estimating rates per head of population in each age group, and these are shown in Figure 2.3. The difference between the distributions of fatalities and seriously injured casualties is again apparent. The latter show again the high British rates for 10-15 age group, and the relatively high rates for younger Dutch children compared with Dutch teenagers. This may reflect the high bicycle usage among the latter group.
13
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
GB
1 3 12 to 1 6 15 to 2 0 19 to 2 5 24 to 3 5 34 to 4 5 44 to 5 5 54 to 6 5 64 75 t o an 74 d ov er
9 10
to
to 7
4
0
to
3
6
SWE NL
to
Fatalities per million population
Pedestrian Fatality Rates
400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
GB
2.4.3
to 4
to 0 Figure 2.3
7 6 10 t o 9 to 13 12 to 16 15 to 20 19 to 25 24 to 35 34 to 45 44 to 55 54 to 65 64 75 t o a n 74 d ov er
SWE NL
3
KSI Casualties per million population
Pedestrian Casualty Rates Killed and seriously injured
Pedestrian casualty rates by head of population by age
Accident location (Urban/Rural)
The coding of accidents as urban and rural in the different countries is not based on the same definitions. In GB, the roads are categorised according to speed limit as follows: • Built-up = all roads 40mph (64kph) and under • Non built-up = all non-motorway roads 50mph (80kph) and over • Motorways = all motorways (note that motorways can have speed limits of 50,60 and 70mph) 14
In Sweden, roads are categorised as either: • Urban Area (tättbebyggt område) - defined as 50kph speed limit or less • Rural area (ej tättbebyggt område) – speed limits greater than 50kph Similar categories in the Dutch data are defined as • Urban = all roads 50 kmph and under (and some 70kph urban main arteries) • Rural = all roads over 50 kmph (including all motorways) SWEDEN 2002 Fatal Pedestrian accident location
NETHERLANDS 2002 Fatal Pedestrian accident location
RURAL 30% URBAN 70%
RURAL 43%
URBAN 57%
GREAT BRITAIN - 2002 Fatal Pedstrian Accident Location Motorways 3%
RURAL (Non built-up roads) 23%
URBAN (Built-up roads) 74%
Figure 2.4
Proportions of fatalities by location
Britain has a higher proportion of pedestrian fatalities on urban (built-up roads) than both NL and especially S. But the situation is confounded by the different definitions of urban area, and the different use of speed limits in the three countries. If percentages of Dutch pedestrian fatalities in urban areas are considered separately by age group, the percentage varies from 75% for 0-11 age group, 50% for 12-59 age group, and 81% for the over-60 age group. For Britain, the proportion is the same (74%) for both children and for all adults averaged together. 2.4.4 Time when pedestrian fatalities occur The distributions of fatalities by time of year shows a relatively higher proportion during November and December in Sweden but this higher proportion does not continue in January to March, so overall the effect is small.
15
Percentage of all Fatal pedestrian casualties
Pedestrian Fatalities by Month 20% 15%
GB
10%
NL SWE
5% 0% J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
Figure 2.5 Distribution of fatalities by month of year The distributions by day of the week are very similar for all three countries, but by hour of the day both the other countries, particularly Britain, have higher proportions of pedestrian fatalities during the evening, probably reflecting a higher proportion of alcohol related pedestrian casualties. Sweden has a higher proportion of pedestrian fatalities in the late afternoon. Pedestrian fatalities by hour of day 14%
Proportion of all pedestrian fatalities
12%
10%
8%
GB NL SWE
6%
4%
2%
0% 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Hour beginning
Figure 2.6 Distribution of fatalities by time of day
2.5 Interventions to reduce the risk 2.5.1 Crossings and crossing design Sweden has a large number of ‘zebra’ pedestrian crossings. However, until the law was changed in 2001, pedestrians did not have priority over other traffic at these crossings. 16
Analysis of risk at these crossings (Ekman and Hyden, 1999) suggested that risk was higher at intersections with a zebra marking than at those without. The authors concluded that the safety potential at signalised crossings could be improved, and that behavioural modification was the key to this improvement. Conflict studies appeared to support these conclusions. They also quote a study by Varheli (1996) of pedestrian and car driver interactions at zebra crossings, suggesting that in critical interactions where there is potential for a conflict to occur, drivers either keep to the same speed or accelerate in 73% of cases. Together with the change in law, Sweden has also adopted a recent policy of removing pedestrian crossings where they are not considered to contribute to safety. At the same time they have given more priority to pedestrians on the crossings that have been retained; it is suggested that this has led to more shunt accidents. There may be a link between these initiatives and the reductions in fatality rate seen in 2001 and 2002. In Britain, several studies (Wilson, 1970; Taylor et al, 1996; Summersgill et al, 1996) have also suggested that introducing pedestrian crossings does not necessarily reduce pedestrian casualties. De Langen, 2003, in the Netherlands, concluded that there are so many types of pedestrian crossings that it is impossible to identify features that increase pedestrian safety. This wide range of different types is in conflict with the Sustainable Safety principle of easily recognizable traffic situations. Many crossing in the Netherlands are designed for both pedestrians and bicyclist. The study recommends that there should be no distinction between both user groups regarding right of way and traffic light presence. Such a distinction relates to confusion for both pedestrians/bicyclists and drivers and as a result to a lack of traffic safety. The studies in all three countries suggest that crossings need to be carefully designed and appropriately sited if they are to improve safety. Crossings at inappropriate sites can lead to confusion and unsafe behaviour by both motorists and pedestrians. 2.5.2 Safer pedestrian road environments Progress on implementing 30kph zones in the three countries is described in Chapter 10. Although progress has been much greater in the Netherlands, it is clear (see Chapter 6 of Koornstra et al) that much of the casualty reduction in the Netherlands prior to 1995 resulted from improving the environment of 50kph roads. The length of roads with this speed limit did not reduce significantly before 1995. Between 1997 and 2002, the Sustainable Safe start up programme in the Netherlands had increased the proportion of roads redesigned as 30kph zones from 15% to 50% (SWOV Factsheet, 2004). The aim is to make a large scale change to the overall residential environment. However, the layout of the new 30kph zones involves less change than previously with speed reducing measures only at ‘dangerous’ locations. In Britain the take-up of 30kph (20mph) zones has been less but a demonstration programme of improvements for routes with mixed vehicle/pedestrian priorities with speed limits remaining at 50kph (30mph) has been initiated. 2.5.3 Improving pedestrian skills and behaviour Britain has developed substantial pedestrian training materials during 1980s and 1990s to counter the relatively high pedestrian accident rates among child pedestrians in Britain in the 6-10 and 11-15 age groups. These appear to have been effective for the former group where the relative British accident rate has improved significantly, but not for the older age 17
group. Reduction in unaccompanied walking among the younger age group may have contributed to the reduction in casualties among this group. There are obligatory training objectives for Dutch schools, including instructing children to participate safely in traffic as pedestrians, but it is not compulsory to test whether these objectives have been met. There has been a long tradition of making car drivers aware of the start of the school year in the Autumn. There is increasing concern in both countries about the proportion of children being taken to school by car and their consequent potential lack of experience of traffic participation, and possible increased risk travelling unaccompanied on other trips.
2.6 Explanation of differences and/or similarities between the countries 2.6.1 Exposure Is there any evidence that GB has more walking, or that the walking trips involve crossing more roads, or that the roads are busier?
Total distance (km) walked (per year) per person
S 300 282 267 0.9 3
All Children Elderly
Average trip length Numbers of roads crossed during average trip
GB/UK 309 268 212 1 Estimates vary from 4 to 9
NL 201 (200) (150) 0.9
Table 2.4 Comparison of pedestrian exposure measures for SUN countries (most recent travel survey data in each country) Based on national travel surveys, average distances walked per person appear very similar in Sweden and Britain, but somewhat lower in the Netherlands. (Dutch data for children and the elderly are estimated from Travel Survey data) British children seem to walk slightly less than Swedish children but a third further than Dutch children (the difference being partly accounted for by the Dutch 12-14 year olds who walk less than two thirds of the distance walked by younger Dutch children). Elderly people in Britain again walk less than those in Sweden, but some 40% further than elderly Dutch pedestrians. Trends in fatality rate per distance walked in recent years are shown in Figure 2.7 below for Britain and the Netherlands. During the period for which common data are available, rates in both countries appear to have dropped at a similar rate.
18
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 S
GB
NL
Figure 2.7 Index of pedestrian fatalities per total person kms walked
A study for the British Department for Transport (Bly et al, 1999) investigated the reasons for the relatively high accident rates per head of population among 5-15 year olds in Britain compared with those in France and the Netherlands. They concluded that There was very little difference in the total time that children spend near roads in the three countries British children cross roads less often than Dutch children But British children spend more time near and crossing more major roads (ie wider roads, roads with higher traffic flows, roads with higher traffic speeds) The study concludes that the different distribution of activity between road environments with different risk (ie busy main roads, local distributor roads and residential access roads) could account for half the difference in the observed child accident rate per head of population. Adults are likely to spend far more of their walking time near or crossing major roads and a high proportion of adult pedestrian fatalities occur on these roads; for example, a study in Gloucester in England showed that roads with annual average daily flows between 10,000 and 20,000 made up only 17% of road length within the town, but over half of all injury accidents occurred on them. Thus differences in traffic flows on these roads between the SUN countries are likely to lead to similar or greater effects on overall accident rates. Koornstra et al suggests that average urban traffic flows (estimated as total urban vehicle kms divided by length of urban roads) in Britain are about twice those in Sweden or the Netherlands (AADT of 3000 compared with 1500). Detailed flow data for comparable road types are difficult to obtain. 2.6.2 Exposure to roads of different risk Various studies have shown that substantial differences occur in accident risk on residential roads within networks built to different designs. Most of these studies however date from 1970s or early 1980s. Residential networks in all three countries have undergone changes since this time, but it is possible that the change in Britain has not been as extensive as in the other two SUN countries. Table 2.5 shows British data (TRL, 1977) [quoted in OECD 1979] for urban residential networks of different ages from pre-1914 (grid pattern networks) to post-1945. More recent studies still show typical rates of one injury accident per km for residential areas, but this is reduced to 0.4 accidents per km for zones with 20mph (30kph) speed limits. Comparable rates per km for fatal and serious accidents are 0.2 for roads with 30mph (50kph) limits and 0.064 for roads in 20mph zones. 19
1.5 0.7
Accidents per thousand residents 2.4 1.3
Child accidents per thousand children 4.3 2.3
1.1
1.0
2.3
Accidents/km Grid pattern Long spine streets Post 1945 layouts with less through roads
Table 2.5
Accident rates in residential areas of different design
The differences in accident rates arise partly from the different density of housing, but mainly from differences in the length of streets, proportion of through routes, and density of multi-conflict junctions in the different design. For example, Bennett and Marland (1978) [quoted on OECD1979] showed that pedestrian accident rates per 10,000 children varied from 23.6 in averaged across streets to 4.0 in culs-de-sac; similarly rates for adult pedestrians varied from 8.5 to 1.3. In Germany, Pfundt (1975) [quoted in OECD, 1979] showed all accidents (excluding those with parked cars) per 1000 inhabitants varied from 1.1 for loop streets in residential access areas to 0.6 for culs-de-sac. What is not well documented in Britain is the proportion of these different types of road network which still exist; many of them may have been partly modified but still retain features that give rise to the higher accident rates. A more recent local British study (Ward et al, 2002) suggests that 20% of total walking and 15% of road crossings are done on major roads (primary or district distributors), with 25% of walking and 18% of crossings on local distributor roads, and 55% of walking and 67% of crossing on residential roads. These relative exposures compare with 50% of pedestrian casualties occurring on major roads, 30% on local distributor roads, and 20% on residential roads. Combining these proportions for the different types of road suggests that the risk on major roads is about twice that on local distributors and 6-10 times that on residential roads depending whether walking or crossing is taken as the indicator of exposure. These differences will reflect in part the different traffic flows on the road types, which may not be the same as those in NL and S. In the Netherlands, similarly, only about 20% of severe crashes occur on residential roads (SWOV Factsheet), whereas these roads account for about 75% of urban road length. SWOV estimates the rate of severe crashes per vehicle km to be 0.174 for residential streets compared with 0.238 for “average” urban streets. For streets within 30 kph zones, this rate is further reduced to 0.06 (of which about two thirds involve pedestrians or cyclists Overall it can be concluded that large differences in risk rate can be seen between older and newer road layouts, and a potentially greater proportion of older layouts in Britain might therefore contribute to higher overall pedestrian fatality rates. But the larger proportion of pedestrian casualties occur on major roads, and differences in risk on these roads are likely to contribute most to differences in overall risk rates. 2.6.3 Influence of town size Studies have identified that towns and cities of different size have different proportions of pedestrian accidents to accidents involving other modes; this probably results from a combination of the different amounts of walking resulting from different opportunities offered by modal choice, the different length and distribution of trips within towns of different sizes, and the different levels and distribution of traffic flow faced by walkers in these towns. It is not possible to examine these variables separately but it is of interest to look at the overall effect in terms of the numbers of pedestrian casualties per head of population in towns of different size. There is some evidence from both British and Dutch data that the 20
rates for larger towns can be significantly higher than for smaller towns, although there is a very wide spread of rates at each town size (Fig 22.8).
0.40 0.30 people
Pedestrian KSI/ 1000
Britain
0.20 0.10 0.00 0
100
200
300
400
500
Population (000s)
P edestrian casualties/1000 people
Netherlands 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0
200
400
600
800
Population
Figure 2.8 Variation in pedestrian casualty rate by town size in Britain and the Netherlands If countries differ in the distribution of their population such that more of the population is in towns with higher casualty rates per head of population then the national casualty total will be comparatively high. Table 2.6 suggests that the distribution of population by town size in the SUN countries is clearly different. Although it is difficult to ensure that data treat population centres within conurbations in a similar way, it appears that there are generally larger concentrations of population in Britain than in the other two countries. This suggests that part of the relatively high average fatality rate in Britain may be due to differences in town size. If for example, an average for Britain is computed excluding both fatalities and population from all the conurbations with a population greater than 1 million (individual centres of this size are not present in the other two countries) the rate per head of population would be some 20% lower than the overall national average. .
S GB NL
Size of population centre (000) 3000
5
8
14
Percentage of population living in centres of different size
2.6.4 Crossing behaviour It is often considered that pedestrians in Britain do not make as much use of formal crossing places as pedestrians in some continental European countries. Comparison of the proportions of fatalities in the SUN countries occurring at crossings suggests that a higher proportion occur on non-signalised crossings in Sweden, but similar lower proportions in GB 21
and NL. But the proportion occurring on signalised crossings is the same in both Sweden and Britain. S 9% 25%
On a signalised crossing On a non-signalised crossing Close to but not on a crossing Away from a marked crossing
Table 2.7
66%
GB/UK 9% 1% 11 % 79 %
NL 17-24 %
76-83 %
Percentage of pedestrian accidents by location
Higher proportions on crossings may reflect more crossings, greater relative use of them, or higher relative risk on these crossings. To clarify this, data is needed on exposure to the various sites, but this is not readily available in any of the countries, although Bly et al concluded that British children were more likely to use more unmarked crossings than children in France, and more likely to cross mid-block than children in either France or the Netherlands. 2.6.5 Economically disadvantaged groups It is well known that accident rates are higher among the D and E socio-economic groups than among the higher groups. Broughton has shown that within Britain the pedestrian fatality rate per head of population varies between areas, being lowest in prospering southern England, in prospering smaller towns, new and growing towns and in London suburbs, and highest in industrial hinterlands and in manufacturing towns. There are likely to be several factors influencing these differences, which are likely to include the road network design issues already discussed. But in addition, when the areas are separated into districts that are officially defined as “deprived areas” it is clear that these have pedestrian fatality rates a third greater than those in non-deprived areas. 2.6.6 Alcohol involvement in pedestrian accidents GB has a high number of pedestrian fatalities who have consumed alcohol. Although similar data is not available for the Netherlands and Sweden, the proportion of fatalities by time of day gives an indication of the influence of this factor. The proportion of pedestrian fatalities occurring between the hours (2200-0400) typically associated with drinking is a third higher in Britain than in the other two countries. 0400 – 2200 2200 – 0400
Table 2.8
S 85 15
GB/UK 80 20
NL 84 16
Proportion of pedestrian fatalities by time of day
Data from Clayton et Colgan (2001) suggests that two thirds of pedestrians killed between 2200 and 0800 hours in one area had been drinking, and one third had BAC levels above 150 mg/100ml; it is concluded that risk increases significantly above this BAC level. In a Dutch study in Groningen (Nothern province) dealing with the period 1993-1997, some 510% of pedestrians had A&E treatment in the hospital related to alcohol consumption. 2.6.7 Driver behaviour Driver behaviour in relation to pedestrians could have a major effect on pedestrian risk. Differences in speeds adopted by drivers on different roads are reflected in part in the first SUNflower report, and together with some indication of the implementation of lower speed limit areas. There are simple comparative data sources showing more specific driver behaviours related to pedestrians. In this section, reported attitudes and behaviour, as identified through the SARTRE surveys are compared, although these may not correspond well with actual behaviour. The SARTRE3 pan-European survey had a small number of questions that provided information on drivers’ attitude towards pedestrians and pedestrian safety in 23 countries 22
that included the 3 SUN countries. For example, one question asked about when planning for the future how much consideration should the government give towards a variety of road user groups. Table 2.9 gives the percentage of drivers in each country who responded that ‘very much’ consideration should be given to pedestrians, cyclists and drivers; the question also asked about motorcyclists, lorries and public transport. The table also gives the ‘average’ for all the countries taking part in the survey (including the 3 SUN countries). This particular question was formulated in an attempt to include issues such as safety, convenience and comfort. Country
Pedestrians
Cyclists
Car drivers
47.4 42.8 27.9 47.5
46.3 37.3 35.9 46.6
41.0 40.3 31.1 41.4
Sweden United Kingdom Netherlands Average for all 23 countries
Table 2.9 How much consideration should government give to different road user groups The table shows that the ‘average’ European driver thinks that governments should give pedestrians (and cyclist) more consideration than, for example, car drivers. Perhaps surprisingly, given that drivers in the 3 SUN countries typically hold ‘good’ attitudes towards road safety, drivers in both Sweden and the UK gave results similar to the ‘average’ EU driver; and Dutch drivers were much less supportive towards pedestrians. The latter result might be explained because drivers in the Netherlands think that their roads are already very ‘sympathetic’ towards pedestrians and cyclists. This is frequently the response of many visitors to the Netherlands when they see what provisions have been made for pedestrians (and cyclists) to the extent that in Amsterdam it is the vulnerable road users that appear to hold the power in traffic at the expense of the car driver. The SARTRE survey also asked how often (using a 6 point response scale from ‘never’ to ‘always’; drivers gave way to pedestrians at pedestrian crossings. Table 2.10 shows what proportion of drivers in each SUN country (and the average for all the drivers surveyed) responded that they ‘always’ or ‘very often’ stopped. Country Sweden United Kingdom Netherlands Average for all 23 countries
Always 49.2 69.0 46.8
Very often 28.5 15.1 22.7
42.6
22.2
Table 2.10. Proportion of drivers giving way to pedestrians at crossings Table 2.10 shows that drivers in the SUN countries reported giving way to pedestrians more frequently than the ‘average’ European driver. This suggests that they are more aware of the risks associated with being a pedestrians (possibly because of education and publicity programmes) and show more consideration towards pedestrians. It should also be recognised that most drivers are also pedestrians and in a traffic environment when pedestrians are shown consideration by drivers they are more likely to show such consideration when driving themselves. The table also shows that drivers in the UK report ‘always’ stopping more than do Swedish or Dutch drivers. This may be because the UK drivers typically (but mistakenly) think that pedestrians have the ‘right of way’ on pedestrians crossing and therefore frequently stop to let pedestrians cross, when they are only required to stop if a pedestrian is already using the crossing. It is also possible that more pedestrian crossings in the UK are controlled by traffic lights which will result in more drivers ‘giving way’ to pedestrians in order to comply with the requirement to stop at traffic lights if they are red. 23
Drivers were also asked how frequently they drove faster than speed limits on different types of road - such as on motorways, trunk roads, country roads and roads in built-up areas. Table 2.11 shows the proportion of drivers in each SUN country (and a European average) who responded that they exceeded speed limits either ‘often’, ‘very often’ or ‘always’ on the different types of road. The table suggests that Swedish and Dutch drivers are more similar to each other than to UK drivers who report speeding less often on all types of road – but note that a higher proportion of UK drivers than in any other country thought that ‘other’ drivers exceeded the speed limit. Country Sweden United Kingdom Netherlands Average all 23 countries
Main roads 27.0 13.3 21.9 18.4
Country roads 14.4 8.4 14.3 13.4
Roads in built-up areas 5.0 3.7 6.9 7.5
Table 2.11 Frequency of exceeding speed limit on different types of road Table 2.11 shows that although drivers in Sweden and the Netherlands report exceeding the speed limit more than the ‘average’ European driver on main roads and country roads they both, along with drivers in the UK, report speeding less often in built-up areas. One reason for this is that they are more aware of the risk speeding presents to pedestrians (which are not typically found on trunk and country roads) and adjust their driving speed accordingly. However other explanations might simply be the greater proportion of 30kph zones, where speeding is less likely, or that on other urban roads they think they are more likely to encounter speed enforcement (from cameras or mobile police units) when driving in built-up areas.
2.7 Conclusions and country specific recommendations 2.7.1 •
Differences between countries The pattern of collisions is fairly similar, but with o More fatalities from car collisions in Sweden and Britain o More fatalities from moped collisions in the Netherlands o A small contribution from pedestrian collisions with trams contributing to Dutch fatality rates, whereas this type of fatality is infrequent and no recorded in “road casualty” statistics in Britain and Sweden o Pedestrian deaths make up proportionately twice as many in Britain as in Sweden, and 2.5 times the proportion in the Netherlands o The pattern of fatalities by age is similar, but Sweden has relatively more elderly (>75) fatalities and less young child ( age 75) in all three countries but the highest is in Sweden, at 45% of all fatalities; for all injuries, the proportion of elderly pedestrians involved is much less o For serious and slight casualties, Britain has a relatively high proportion in 10-15 age range, while Netherlands has a high proportion in 4-6 age range. o Higher proportion of fatalities are recorded in rural areas in Sweden and the Netherlands, but the definitions of urban and rural differ between the countries o Slightly higher proportion of fatalities in Sweden in the winter and less in the summer o Slightly higher proportion of fatalities between 2100 hours and 2400 hours in Britain. o British drivers report more considerate behaviour towards pedestrians than do Swedish and Dutch drivers.
24
2.7.2 •
• • •
Reasons for high British fatality rate There appears to be no substantive differences in total amounts of walking in Britain and Sweden but somewhat less walking in the Netherlands; this appears to be particularly so among older children and adults probably because of the extensive use of bicycles . There is a higher proportion of large cities in Britain – which have higher pedestrian fatality rates than the smaller towns that are more prevalent in the other two countries. There appear to be slightly more fatalities during the evening in Britain – possibly resulting from higher accident rates among drinking pedestrians Although hard evidence is limited, there is also some indication that o more (and busier) roads are crossed by British pedestrians on their walking trips. o More older style road layouts (with consequent higher accident rates) still exist in Britain o There appear to be slightly more fatalities away from marked crossing sites in Britain – although accident rates at these sites are not obviously worse than at marked crossing sites.
In summary • These factors taken together influence different age groups in different ways, and may explain some of the differences in the extent of the increased British fatality rate for different age groups. • But the only fundamental difference that appears to influence all age groups is the collective effect of the network and traffic factors that result in British pedestrians facing crossing tasks on more roads with busier traffic than in the other countries. 2.7.3 Recommendations Britain should • make a more comprehensive assessment of the proportion of urban roads that still retain features of traditional street layouts, such as through routes within and multiple accesses to residential areas, and mixed functions along main roads, which continue to lead to higher pedestrian casualty rates • continue to encourage increased use of 20mph zones in areas having high pedestrian accident rates • focus more effort on seeking innovative road designs which cater for mixed vehicular and vulnerable road user activities at the higher traffic flow levels evident in Britain • continue to seek ways of reducing the higher risk associated with pedestrians during the evenings The Netherlands should • Increase the share of 30 kph zones in urban areas • Make crossing facility design more uniform/consistent within a road category, and make it comply with the requirements of Sustainable Safety • Investigate the high proportion of pedestrian fatalities involving mopeds • Investigate the high proportion of pedestrian casualties among the 4-6 year old. Although fatality rate in Sweden is already relatively low, the high proportion of elderly pedestrians may be worthy of more attention.
25
3
Cyclist safety
3.1 Introduction The bicycle is a unique vehicle. It was introduced at the end of the 19th century and subsequently many walking trips were replaced by cycle trips. In the beginning bicycles were quite expensive but by around 1900 the bicycle was more or less similar to the construction of today. The cost of a new bicycle at that time corresponds to about EU 1000. Together with the horse transport it was the only vehicle in rural areas which could be used by everyone. The bicycle became necessary during the World Wars when car transport was limited but after the Second World War was also in competition with the motorcycle. During recent decades the bicycle has been an important vehicle for children until they are able to use and afford a motor vehicle. Even for other groups who don’t have a motor vehicle the bicycle is important. Generally over recent last decades the use of bicycles has been fairly stable despite the increasing use of motor vehicles. The use of bicycles has at the same time been encouraged because of their low travel speed (close to the travel speed of buses), cleanliness, healthiness, and reduction in dependence on use of cars in urban areas.. Bicycles can be used as a link to the fast public transport facilities, trains and subways. Two limitations on their use however can be exposure to poor weather and the hilliness of the urban area. The last factors may partly explain why cycling is not as popular in Great Britain as it is in Sweden and in the Netherlands. Total use in Great Britain is of the same magnitude as in Sweden even though the population is 6 times higher in Great Britain. Use in Sweden is strongly dependent on the climate and cycling is not so common in the winter period (November-March). The use of bicycles is very high in the Netherlands as almost all positive factors exist – rather good climate, no hills and the ease of use to reach fast public transport systems which are normally within a suitable bicycle distance. The first SUN report (Koornstra et al, 2002) showed that fatality risk per cyclist km travelled was twice as high in Great Britain as in Sweden, with risk in the Netherlands being slightly lower than in Sweden. This chapter will look at factors that might explain these differences.
3.2
Extent of the problem
3.2.1 Sweden Almost all Swedes have at least one bicycle. Cycling has a long tradition in Sweden and all children have a bicycle. It is a seasonal variation but also a strong variation between the south and the north of Sweden. The use is concentrated to urban areas. Bicycle use in Sweden has been rather constant during recent decades and is estimated annually to be nearly 3 billion bicycle kilometres. A lot of efforts are made to increase the use and the safety for cyclists for example increasing the length of bicycle tracks. The bicycle standard is very high. The problem is the winter period and the hilliness in some parts of Sweden which restrict the use of bikes. Bicycle helmets have increased in use and are used by about 20 % of the bicyclists. A majority of school children up to 13 use the helmets but then the use decrease. In order to solve that a law has been decided from the 1st of January 2005 that all children younger than 15 years old using a bicycle must use helmets. More than 50 % of all cycling is done on separate bicycle lanes.
3.2.2 Great Britain Forty-three percent of households in England own at least one bicycle, although this varies from 32% in a large city such as London to 48% in Southern and eastern England. Bicycle sales are of the order of 2 million per year. A total of about 4 billion person kilometres were 26
made by bicycle in 2001 (National travel Survey). This represents about 0.6% of the total distance travelled in Great Britain (ie about 62 kilometres per person). Although some areas have seen increases in cycle use since 1996, the cycling in many parts of UK has remained at a base level of about 2% of all trips. Around 3% of trips to work are made by bicycle but only 2% of school trips, down from about 5% of school trips in 1991. Leisure cycling is increasing but much of this is done off public roads. The National Cycle Network now totals 16 000 kilometres, and carries around 60 million trips by bicycle each year. Despite the low level of cycling nationally, much higher levels are seen in some towns where conditions have been made more favourable for cycling. In Hull which has 24kms of cycle lanes over 7 routes along major roads, 14% of work trips are made by bicycle. Typical cycle flows on these routes are 500-900 per day alongside motorised vehicle flows of 10,000-20,000 AADT. In Oxford, 14% of trips to work are made by bicycle, and in the London Congestion Charge area, cycling is estimated to have increased by 30% since the charge was implemented. 3.2.3 The Netherlands The Netherlands is a country of cyclists: 16.3 million inhabitants own 13.4 million bicycles, i.e. 8 out of 10 Dutch own a bike. In the early seventies there were 7 million bicycles. The number of mopeds (< 50 cc) is some 500,000 now, in comparison to almost two million in 1970. In the last few years the number of bicycles and mopeds has remained stable. In 2003, bicycles account for 14% of all travelled kilometres as compared to private cars, mopeds and public transport that account for 77%, 1% and 21% respectively. The most important motive to ride a bike appears to be recreational and sport (27%), commuting to work (21%), to school (16%) and shopping (15%). For the moped it is different: 41% commuting to work, 19% to school and 13% recreational. The bicycle use rate in the Netherlands is one of the highest in Europe. Only Denmark surpasses the Dutch rate. The relative importance of bicycles in Dutch has been reflected in infrastructure design, in which the bicycle has been taken into account to a larger extent than in a lot of other countries and further improvements to the infrastructure are being made in the context of the Dutch framework of sustainable-safety to help cyclists avoid (dangerous) encounters, or make them safer.
3.3 Availability, quality and comparability of data Accident data concerning single accidents with bicycle is very seldom reported to the police except of very severe accidents. Data on collision accidents with motor vehicles is normally reported as a function of the severity of the injuries of the bicyclist. This is the same situation as for injured pedestrians. Normally national travel habit survey studies are done regularly to estimate the use of bicycles. As the samples normally are a random selection of inhabitants the estimates of the bicycle exposure will be very uncertain, particularly for example if distributed on age groups and gender.
3.4 Country differences 3.4.1 Variation in amount of cycling The cycling amount varies between the countries depending on different factors.
27
Country
Km/year per inhabitant
Denmark Netherlands Germany Ireland Great Britain Spain Sweden
893 853 287 181 76 20 330
Table 3.1. The average cycling distance per inhabitant per year in some European countries Netherlands together with Denmark can be said to be “The cycling countries” in Europe. Sweden is also a “cycling country” but the cold climate during the winter in the northern part of Sweden reduces the amount of cycling. In the southern part the cycling can be compared to the situation in Denmark. The cycling in Great Britain is low due to that the ownership of a cycle is limited, which is not the case in Sweden or the Netherlands there almost everyone has a cycle. 3.4.2 Trends over time of bicyclist fatalities Figure 3.1 shows the trends in the number of cyclist fatalities reported by the police in Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands between 1980 and 2003.
1.2 1
Sweden Great Britain
0.8
Netherlands
0.6 0.4 0.2 2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
0 1980
Killed cyclists. Index 1980=1
The overall reduction has been similar in all three countries. The main reason for the improvement in the three countries is the separation of bicyclists from car traffic or car speed reduction in urban areas.
Year
Figure 3.1. The development of bicyclist fatalities in traffic 1980-2003 in Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands (Index 1980 = 1) Reduction in cyclist fatalities is also associated partly with a reduction in the amount of cycling in Britain whereas in the other two countries it results mainly from greater separation of cyclists from motorised vehicles and a reduction in the speed of motorised vehicles
3.4.3 Monthly variation of injured bicyclists in Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands The monthly variation of injured cyclists is a mirror of the use of bikes during the year. As parts of Sweden are covered with snow and it is cold during the winter period cycling is not common in the winter period (Figure 3.2). 28
Fatalities Severely injured Slightly injured
ly Au Se gus t pt em be r O ct ob N ov er em b D ec er em be r
Ju
Ju ne
ay M
Ap ril
Sum
Ja nu a Fe ry br ua ry M ar ch
20.0% 18.0% 16.0% 14.0% 12.0% 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0%
Figure 3.2. The monthly distribution of bicycle casualties during 2000-2003 in Sweden In Great Britain the influence of the winter period is less but the bicycling is reduced during December to March ( Figure 3.3) Fatalities
14.0%
Severely injured
12.0%
Slightly injured Sum
10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0%
Au gu Se st pt em be r O ct ob er N ov em be D r ec em be r
Ju ly
Ju ne
ay M
Ap ril
Ja nu a Fe ry br ua ry M ar ch
0.0%
Figure 3.3 The monthly distribution of bicycle casualties during 2002-2003 in Great Britain
29
14.0% 12.0% 10.0%
Fatalities Severely injured Slightly injured Sum
8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0%
Ju
ly Au Se gus t pt em be r O ct ob N ov er em b D ec er em be r
Ja nu a Fe ry br ua ry M ar ch Ap ril M ay Ju ne
0.0%
Figure 3.4. The monthly distribution of bicycle casualties during 2003 in the Netherlands In the Netherlands there is a similar drop in December to February as in Great Britain, which means that the climate effect is less than in Sweden (Figure 3.4). 3.4.4
Injury rates for females and males and age groups
3.4.4.1 Injury rate in Sweden The difference in injury risk in Sweden is very small between male and female cyclists (Figure 3.5).
Injured per million person kilometres
Injury rate for cyclists 2000-2003 in Sweden 3.00
Male
2.50
Female
2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 -14
15 17
18 24
25 34
35 44
45 54
55 64
65 74
75 -
Sum
Age
Figure 3.5. Injured per million person kilometres for male and female cyclists 2000-2003 in Sweden 3.4.4.2 KSI-rate in Great Britain Exposure data for cyclists in Britain is available from the National Travel Survey but as cycling levels are low, it is difficult to accurately disaggregate this data into age groups. Cycling can form whole trips or be part of a multimode trip; exposure estimates are therefore made in terms of “stages” of trips. Based on these data, estimates have been made, for a limited disaggregation of age groups, of the fatality rate for all cyclists and the killed and seriously injured rate for male and female cyclists. These estimates should only 30
be taken as indicative. The differences between male and females appear to be highest in the under 16 and 25-59 age groups(Figure 3.6).
1.00 person kms
injured per million
Killed and seriously
KSI rate for cyclists 2003 Britain
Male
0.80
Female
0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 19
Age band Sw
UK
NL
Figure 4.4. Killed per age band, share of all moped fatalities, 1995-2002 In the Netherlands, the absolute numbers of fatalities are highest for the 16-19 and >19 age bands. In the 19 group accounts for 50% of all killed; only 3% for 20-34 and 47% for 35+. In the Netherlands the overall contribution of the 20+ group is similar (56%), but the subdivision is quite different; 16% in the 20-34 group and 40% in the 35+ group. In the UK, the share of the 20+ group is somewhat higher at 62%; 14% in the 20-29 age band and 48% in the 30+ group.
46
KSI share per age band, 1995-2002 60
Share of KSI (%)
50
40
30
20
10
0 19
Age band Sw
UK
NL
Figure 4.5. KSI per age band, share of all moped KSI, aggregated over 1995-2002 Trends for KSI are similar to those for fatalities, although the >19 age band is not dominant anymore. For Sweden, this results in a significantly higher share of the 19 group results in a higher share of the 16-19 group. For the Netherlands it should be noted that, within the 15-19 age band, the 16-17 group has a share of about 2/3. In Sweden, the >19 age band (28%), contains 9% for 20-34 and 19% for 35+. In NL, the >19 age band (44%), contains 20% for 20-34 and 24% for 35+. In the UK, the >19 age band (47%) has been composed of 17% for 20-29 and 30% for 30+. From Figures 4.4 and 4.5 it can be concluded that the age group 15 -19 is over represented in the casualty numbers for all countries. In Sweden this mainly relates to the 15 year old starters, in the Netherlands it mainly relates to the 16-17 year old starters. Furthermore for the young, KSI shares are higher than fatality shares. For the elderly, it is the other way around. This has been observed frequently for other traffic modes as well. Figure 4.6 gives a more detailed look into the time development of the KSI share of the 1519 year old with respect to moped KSI for all ages. A Figure 4.6 type of overview for fatalities could not be obtained reasonably, because of high fluctuations due to disaggregation.
47
KSI share of the 15-19 year age band of all moped KSI 70
KSI share (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Year Sw
UK
NL
Figure 4.6 KSI share of the age band 15-19 with respect to all moped KSI, over time The KSI share in the Netherlands slightly but continuously decreased from 57% in 1994 to 50% in 2003. The KSI share in Sweden fluctuates around 60%. In the UK, the KSI share noticeably increased from 37% in 1995 to 59% in 2002. Figure 4.7 gives an overview of the modal split of the 15-19 year olds by means of the share of moped KSI within all travel modes. KSI moped share of all modes for 15-19 year old 60
KSI share (%)
50
40
30
20
10
0 1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Year Sw
UK
NL
Figure 4.7 Age band 15-19; KSI moped share with respect to all travel modes, as a function of time The moped KSI share of the 15-19 year old within all modes again is clearly highest for the Netherlands and appears to be quite stable during the last decade. The UK shows a significant increase with a factor 2.6. This is disproportionally high since for all ages the KSI share increased with a factor 1.75 according to Figure 4.3. 48
Looking more precisely into this age band, it was found that in the Netherlands the shares for 16-17 are much higher than for 15-19 (killed: 55%, KSI: 75%). At least partly this can be explained by car access for the 18-19 year old. In the UK, the16 year olds contribute about 60% of the KSI share for mopeds.
4.4 Traffic safety rates Traffic safety rates provide for a connection between casualty numbers and performance or features of the traffic system in a country. They are therefore a valuable way of normalizing traffic safety for comparing countries. Rates can be determined by calculating the number of casualties per inhabitant, per moped or per distance travelled. In the framework of this study, the latter is the best indicator since it directly relates risk to exposure. For this indicator, however, it is difficult to obtain suitable and internationally comparable data, especially for a traffic mode such as the moped, that does not get the same level of attention in all countries. Therefore it has been decided to use all three indicators in a supplementary way, for comparing the countries. Casualty data has been restricted to fatalities, due to reasons explained before. 4.4.1 Mortality: fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants Figure 4.8 gives an overview of the number of moped fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants, defined as mortality, from 1980 until 2003. It shows the same overall trend as depicted in Figure 4.1, apart from the fact that Sweden and the UK have changed positions. The differences between the countries increase over time. In 1980, the Dutch mortality was 10 times higher than the British and 3.5 times higher than the Swedish; in 2003 these factors have become 15 and 6. Mortality: moped fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants over time 1.6
1.4
Fatality rate
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Time Sw
UK
NL
Figure 4.8. Moped fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants, development over time 4.4.2 Fatalities per 1000 mopeds Table 4.4 shows the development of fatalities and KSI per 1000 mopeds since 1998. The rate is clearly lowest in Sweden. The UK rate is approaching the Dutch rate.
49
Killed per 1000 mopeds NL
UK
Sw
1998
0,16
0,1
0,1
1999
0,2
0,18
0,12
2000
0,2
0,14
0,09
2001
0,15
0,13
0,07
2002
0,19
0,18
0,09
Table 4.4. Fatalities per 1000 mopeds since 1998 4.4.3 Fatalities per million moped kilometres Figure 4.9 shows the time development of fatalities per million kilometres. Fatality and travel survey data have been aggregated for three time intervals: 1994-1996, 1997-1999 and 2000-2003. In the Netherlands, data was not available for 1994, so 1995-1996 was used for the first period. For the UK, exposure data have been based on kilometrages per moped according to Table 4.3. No disaggregation into age bands has been performed, due to data constraints (small number of fatalities combined with limitations to the accuracy of travel survey outcomes). Fatalities per million person km's over time 0,12
0,1
Fatality rate
0,08
0,06
0,04
0,02
0 1994-1996
1997-1999
2000-2003
Time interval
Sw
UK
NL
Figure 4.9. Moped fatalities per million person kilometres, all ages, development over time (1994-2003) In the Netherlands, the fatality risk over time remains at a relatively high level. In the period 2000-2003, Dutch fatality rates are 2.3 times higher than the Swedish and 2 times higher than the British. The lower fatality rate per kilometre in Sweden compared with the Netherlands can numerically be explained by less fatalities per moped, since the exposure per moped is quite similar between the countries (2000 onwards). The fatality rate in Sweden decreased by almost 50% from 1997-1999 to 2000-2003. This can be explained by an exposure increase (due to both a bigger moped fleet and higher kilometrage per moped) and a relatively stable number of fatalities. The higher rate in the period 1997-1999 compared with 1994-1996 is due to more fatalities, since the exposure did not change. 50
The Dutch fatality risk is higher than the British, since the exposure per moped is much lower, whereas fatalities per moped are quite similar. For both countries, little change in risk is observed, although the gap between the countries is becoming smaller. Fatality risks in Sweden and the UK are approximately at the same level, since a higher fatality rate per moped in the UK is compensated by a higher kilometrage per moped. Estimates for the 15-17 age band (based on aggregated 2000-2001 data) indicate a 4 times higher fatality rate for the Dutch compared with the Swedes. For the 18-24 age band, the Swedish risk is about 2 times higher. This is probably due to very small exposure compared with the 15-17 year olds. For the Netherlands, further estimates regarding the 15-17 year olds indicate a slight but continuous change in fatality rate from 0.12 in 1994-1996 to 0.11 in 1997-1999 and 0.10 in 2000-2003. This is still above the average for all ages. Both exposure and number of fatalities have decreased since the late nineties. In Sweden, the higher popularity of the moped among the 15-17 year olds resulted in higher exposure, but stable casualty numbers and consequently lower risks.
4.5 Discussion on the observed differences The preceding sections have provided insight into the seriousness of the moped safety problem. This mostly affects the Netherlands, for which the moped fatality share, mortality and fatality risk per kilometre are much higher than in Sweden and the UK. Special concern goes to novice riders. They are over represented in the casualty statistics of all three countries. And for this group, differences in safety records among the countries appear to be bigger than for the overall population. For the discussion and possible explanation of differences between the countries, the focus will be on the fatality risk (fatalities/km). In the Netherlands, the fatality risk over time has remained at a relatively high level (whereas risks for other traffic modes have decreased due to overall safety improvements). In Sweden, risks are at a lower level and show a further decrease after 2000. In the UK, risks are relatively low and appear to be stable. For discussing these differences the situation in the Netherlands is the starting point. Several aspects will be addressed that are related to the main components of the traffic system: rider, vehicle, road network and traffic characteristics. At first glance, moped vehicle types are not very different in the SUN countries. Design characteristics, such a design speed, appear to be mostly identical. Regarding personal protection devices, differences do occur. First of all, the Dutch light moped is the only type within the SUN countries, for which a helmet is not compulsory. Dutch statistics over the period 1995-2003 show that the fatality risk for light mopeds is about 30% higher than for mopeds. And although the light moped's fatality and kilometrage share is small compared with the moped (respectively 20% and 15%), it is definitely not neglible. The helmet wearing rate for the Dutch moped is estimated at 90%. For the other countries, wearing helmets is common use. Data were not available, so it is unknown to what extent risk differences can be explained by helmet wearing rates. For the Netherlands however it is clear that a helmet obligation for light mopeds and increasing helmet wearing rates for mopeds will contribute to a decrease of the overall fatality risk for mopeds. Even more if it is combined with speed control as explained below. Between the SUN countries, legal speed limits for mopeds are in the same range. Both Sweden and the Netherlands have mopeds within the 25-45 kph range. For the UK it is a little higher at 48 kph (30 mph). However, moped speed offences are a well-known problem in the Netherlands as opposed to the other countries. Many mopeds and light mopeds are tampered with and thus able to reach higher speeds than the vehicle's design speed and the legally allowed speed. Tampered mopeds are mainly used by novice riders. Combined with a of lack of experience on a motorized vehicle, youth risk due to adolescence, and their main usage motive being social conduct and fun, this results into a higher accident and injury risk. Anti-tampering measures have been introduced in the Netherlands, but without 51
sufficient success. In Sweden (class 1) and the UK a registration plate is required for vehicle inspection. Such a measure, that has been planned in the Netherlands for 2005, is expected to reduce the number of tampered mopeds and to facilitate enforcement of traffic offences (Schoon and Goldenbeld, 2003). A quantification of effects based on British and Swedish experiences can not be given however, due to other developments regarding speed that are interrelated. For instance, in Sweden 85% of the moped fleet concerns the class 2 moped, that has a 25 kph speed limit and rides on the bicycle track. It appears reasonable to attribute some of the lower Swedish risk to this, although it is not known if kilometrages are proportionally divided between class 2 and 1 mopeds. Accident statistics for the three countries show that the distribution of fatalities in urban and rural areas is about 50%-50%. The distribution of KSI is 75%-25% for all countries. Furthermore, in all countries, multi-vehicle accidents have a higher share than single vehicle accidents and in most cases the crash partner is a private car. Important accident causing factors for multi-vehicle accidents are observation failures of car drivers, conspicuity of the moped, and adolescent behaviour of the moped rider. A dominant effect on the low Swedish risk can probably be attributed to the relatively low frequency of moped-car conflict due to the coarse road network and relatively low traffic densities. However, this is a hypothesis since no in-depth accident information is available for Sweden. Besides, the exposure to potentially risky situation is reduced in Sweden, since moped usage is far less in winter. For all countries, most casualties have been registered in the period April-September, but in Sweden this is obviously more pronounced. Practical recommendations for other SUN countries based on these observations are not very plausible. In the Netherlands, two measures were introduced to improve the car-moped interaction. In 1999, the moped was moved from the bicycle path to the carriageway in urban areas. The light moped remained on the bicycle track. In 2001, the measure 'right of way for slow traffic from the right' came into effect, in relation to bicycles and all mopeds, aiming at more consistent traffic rules. Although a decrease of mopeds accidents of about 15% has been observed, the effect dedicated to these measures could not be detected to date (Schoon and Goldenbeld, 2003). Part of the risk difference between the UK and the Netherlands may be explained by the fact that in urban areas British mopeds are in mixed traffic and their speed limit is more equal to other motorized traffic, 48 kph (30 mph). This may lead to a better interaction between cars and mopeds than in the Netherlands. However, in rural areas there is a potentially more dangerous speed inconsistency than in the Netherlands, since mopeds are still in mixed traffic and the moped speed limit is the same. It is not clear which of these effects is stronger. In the UK, the traffic density is even higher than in the Netherlands and the share of mopeds within the vehicle fleet is by far lowest of the SUN countries. Based on this, higher risks than observed would be expected. Characteristics of the moped riding population and the type of trips are considered to have the highest influence. The moped is mainly used for basic journey purposes, far less for social activity or fun. Though mainly used by the young, the moped is not a fashion item. Furthermore, speeding and tampering is not identified as a problem and therefore considered not common. Another factor can be the rider qualification. The UK is the only country that controls moped access with a compulsory theoretical and practical test, preceded by a training course and resulting into a provisional or full moped licence, as part of a staggered access scheme for all PTW's. Novice riders therefore may have more traffic skills and knowledge, and they may have the opportunity to gain experience in less dangerous situations. Concrete benefits can however not be isolated from the available statistics. It has to be noted that data considerations can give some distortion of the risk numbers in the UK. The kilometrage per moped may have been overestimated somewhat, and scooters 1 indicate an overrepresentation of young drivers in an accident type, while values < 1 indicate an underrepresentation.
Over representation ratio (18-24 compared to 30- 59 )
over-representation ratio
3 2,5 2 1,5 1 0,5 0 Single
Alcohol related
Passengers
Weekend nights
country
Sweden
UK
Netherlands
Figure 6.6 Number of times the percentage in the 18-24 age band is more than in the 30-59 age band in 2003 for fatal single car accidents, alcohol related accidents, fatal accidents in which passengers were injured or killed and weekend night accidents Young novice drivers are relatively over represented in single car accidents, fatal alcohol related accidents, fatal accidents in which passengers are injured or killed and fatal weekend night accidents compared with older more experienced drivers. Only in Sweden young novice drivers involved in fatal alcohol related accidents are under-represented (over representation ratio slightly less than 1). The over-representation of fatal weekend night accidents for young novice drivers is quite similar between the 3 countries. The overrepresentation of fatal single car accidents in which young novice drivers are involved, is remarkably higher in the UK than in the other 2 countries. Compared to the 30-59 age band, the 18-24 age band in the Netherlands are more over-represented in fatal accidents with passengers, than is the case in the UK and in Sweden.
6.4
Differences in attitudes and self-reported behaviour.
6.4.1 Introduction This section presents the changes over time, in young (18-24) and older car-drivers in SUNcountries with respect to attitudes towards speeding, seatbelt use and drink-driving. In addition self-reported behaviour are presented. For this purpose, data from the SARTRE questionnaires were re-analysed. . SARTRE is the acronym of « Social Attitudes to Road Traffic Risk in Europe ». In the SUN-countries, between 1991 and 2002 the SARTREsurvey was performed three times. The SARTRE database enables comparison of drivers' opinions, preferences and self-reported behaviour in different countries and to study changes over time. 6.4.2 Method In the paragraph 6.4.3. the general change over time in the three SUNcountries is studied by way of a change index score. For each SUNcountry an index change scores of opinions and preferences and an index change score of self-reported behaviour between 1996 79
(SARTRE-2) and 2002 (SARTRE-3) is presented. For each of the three SUN countries the results of two groups of drivers were compared: (1) drivers aged 18-24 years (2) drivers aged 30-59 years. Table 6.14 presents the sample sizes of these comparison groups. Because of low cell frequencies, a further division according to gender was not possible.
Age Group 18-24 30-59
Number SARTRE respondents 1996 and 2002, split out for gender and age. UK 1996 UK 2002 Ne 1996 Ne 2002 Swe 1996 Swe 2002 102 633
74 759
72 716
102 650
77 665
112 633
Table 6.14: sample sizes in the study When reading the questionnaire results in the next sections the reader should keep in mind that often these results could be interpreted in different ways. Changes in opinions can mean different things. For example, if the interest in a particular road safety measure lessens over time, this could mean that the measure is already operative and does not need any more attention. On the other hand, a different explanation might be that experiences with the measure are not positive and therefore enthusiasm has slackened over time. Likewise, the changes in self-reported behaviour also invite multiple meanings. We may critically question whether drivers really change their behaviour or whether they are merely presenting a more positive image of themselves because they are more aware of the social norms regarding traffic. An alternative explanation for changes in self-reported behaviour may be that, over time, publicity about a specific makes drivers more aware of their own behaviour and being more aware of their behaviour they report a better estimate of that behaviour. Thus, the reality could be that the behaviour actually has not changed that much, but that drivers are more aware of their behaviour and therefore tend to report it more frequently. Also, if certain traffic behaviour is reported less frequently, this could be the result of more severe social norms, which forbid the behaviour instead of an actual change of the behaviour. These confounding factors are particularly relevant in making comparisons between age groups and between countries, as social differences between age groups and cultural differences between countries may influence the responses irrespectively of actual driving behaviour, opinions and attitudes. 6.4.3
General changes over time
Based on SARTRE-2-SARTRE-3 comparison, Goldenbeld et al. (2004) reported on how opinions, preferences and self-reported behaviour of European car drivers changed over time. In this section we present a summary overview of these results. To summarize results for each country, a change index based on the answers for eighteen opinion attitude questions and 18 self-reported behaviour questions is presented. Table 6.2 presents the change index scores for opinion/attitudes and behaviour for the SUN countries.
80
Change index score based on eighteen Change score index behaviour attitude/opinion questions. Scale questions. Scale ranging from –10 to ranging from –10 to +10 points. +10 points. Austria +0,5 +0,4 Belgium +0,3 +0,7 Czech Republic +2,8 0 Finland +3,8 0 France +2,8 +0,4 Germany +0,8 0 Greece +1,1 +1,4 Hungary +0,5 +0,4 Ireland +5,8 +2,8 Italy +2,8 +2,5 0 -0,4 Netherlands Poland +2,2 0 Portugal +4,7 +1,8 Slovakia +1,1 -1,1 Slovenia +1,1 +2,1 Spain -0,6 -5,0 +3,6 +0,7 Sweden Switzerland +4,2 -1,4 +4,7 +0,4 United Kingdom Change index calculated by summing change scores on opinion/attitude questions. A negative score indicates a deterioration of the safety level; a positive score indicates an improvement.
Table 6.15 Change index scores for opinion/attitudes and self-reported traffic behaviour for the SUN countries and other EU countries The table shows the following: • The change index scores for opinions and attitudes tend to be higher than those for self-reported behaviour. This seems to attest to the fact that it is easier for drivers to change their mind than their behaviour on the road. • There is a group of countries that shows no overall change on both opinion/attitude questions and self-reported behaviour questions. This group includes the Netherlands. • Another group of countries shows a moderately large and positive score on the index for opinions/attitudes but a low or even negative score for the index for behaviour questions. This group includes Sweden and United Kingdom Netherlands In general, few large changes have appeared in the opinions, attitudes and self-reported behaviour of Dutch drivers. Like drivers in several other countries, Dutch drivers show better attitudes and behaviour concerning seat belt use, at the same time Dutch drivers have come to prefer higher speeds on motorways. Sweden Together with Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Sweden does not show much change in self-reported behaviour between 1996 and 2002. Over time, Swedish drivers have become stronger supporters for several road safety measures, such as improvement in driver training and in the standards of roads, and more police traffic enforcement and a total ban on alcohol for novice drivers. United Kingdom Between 1996 and 2002 drivers in UK appear to show better adherence to speed limits on main roads and within urban areas and more positive attitudes towards several road safety measures, seat belt use and control of drinking-driving.
81
6.4.4 Young novice drivers: attitudes and behaviour This section present findings of the analyses on age differences concerning self-reported speeding, drinking and driving, and seat belt use. The findings to be reported are all statistically significant at p 3.5 tonnes) which are the subject of this chapter. In 2003 a Heavy Goods Vehicle was involved in 16 % of the fatalities in Sweden. The corresponding figure for Great Britain was 11 % and in the Netherlands 14 % of the fatalities involved a Heavy Goods Vehicle. Heavy Goods Vehicles constitute 5.8 % of the vehicle kilometres in Great Britain, 5.5 % of the vehicle kilometres in Sweden and 5.0 % in the Netherlands. The proportion of Heavy Goods Vehicle kilometres thus seems to be almost the same in the three countries! One difference is that the vehicle length allowed is 25.25 meters in Sweden (A heavy lorry and a trailer in combination) compared to 18.75 meter in the two other countries (A tractor and a semi trailer) - Figures 7.1 and 7.2. About half of the Swedish Heavy Goods Vehicles have the length of 18.75 meter or shorter. The total weight of a Heavy Goods Vehicle can be 60 ton. The vehicle weight of a Heavy Goods Vehicle is > 3.5 tonnes.
Figure 7.1. Tractor and a semi trailer
Figure 7.2. A heavy lorry and a trailer As Heavy Goods Vehicles do about 5 % of the vehicle kilometres in the countries they are likely to be involved in more than 10 % of the collision fatalities. These fatalities in most cases refer to the other vehicle occupants or to cyclist and pedestrian fatalities resulting from the collision and seldom to the Heavy Goods Vehicle occupants. This means that Heavy Goods Vehicles are overrepresented in fatal accidents involving fatalities to other road users, especially passenger car occupants, and of course underrepresented in terms of fatalities to their own occupants. The use of Heavy Goods Vehicles is to some extent international. In the next section the involvement of foreign Heavy Goods Vehicles in fatal and reported injury accidents in the three countries is evaluated. It is also of interest to consider to what extent Heavy Goods Vehicles from Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands are used abroad. Usage of foreign Heavy Goods Vehicles expressed in vehicle kilometres is estimated to be larger in Sweden than Swedish Heavy Goods Vehicle kilometres abroad.
92
7.2 Road traffic and accident involvement rates with Heavy Goods Vehicles in Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands It is important to know the amount of Heavy Goods Vehicles in order to describe the traffic safety problem with Heavy Goods Vehicles. In Table 7.1 fatality rate, injury rate and injury consequences are presented for Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands. Billion kilometres with Heavy Goods Vehicles 2003 4.12
Country
Sweden
87
Fatal accidents per 1000 million vehicle kilometres 21.1
Fatal accidents with HGV involved 2003
1 243*
311*
Number of fatal accidents of all injury accidents with HGV 8.4* %
Injury accidents with HGV involved
Injury accidents per 1000 million vehicle kilometres
Great Britain
28.5
533
18.7
13 173
472
4.0 %
The Netherlands
6.50
134
20.6
1 421*
227*
10.4 %
*=2002
Table 7.1. Traffic, fatality and injury rate for traffic accidents and proportion of fatalities of all injured in accidents involving Heavy Goods Vehicles 2003 In general the proportion of fatalities of all injured is three times higher for accidents involving Heavy Goods Vehicles than the average proportion of fatalities of all injured in the three countries. The vehicle kilometres above are estimated annually in Great Britain. Swedish data is an estimate of HGV traffic in Sweden in 2002 and an indirect estimate is received for the Netherlands The fatality rates in Table 7.1 show a similar value for the three countries. The value for Sweden is somewhat higher than in Great Britain. The Netherlands is between the two other countries. 8.4 % of all reported injured in accidents is a fatality in Sweden and the Netherlands, 10.4 %. The lower proportion in Great Britain reflects their higher reporting rate of minor accidents. The fatal proportion is 3-4 times higher for Heavy Goods Vehicles than for the average value for all fatalities and all injured in the three countries. 7.2.1
Foreign heavy goods vehicles in Sweden
Nationality Swedish Other Nordic Other countries % Foreign heavy lorries Sum
1994 62
1995 88
1996 80
1997 75
1998 94
1999 74
2000 93
2001 93
2002 106
2003 80
4
3
4
11
11
4
11
7
7
4
4
6
3
3
4
3
6
4
4
5
11.4
9.3
8.0
15.7
15.0
8.6
15.5
10.6
13.1
10.1
70
97
87
89
109
81
110
104
122
104
Table 7.2. Heavy Goods Vehicles involved in fatal accidents reported by the police 19942003 and home country in Sweden Nationality
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Swedish
1035
1072
983
1005
1107
1148
1052
1083
1142
925
Other Nordic
55
53
49
51
70
68
71
79
86
50
Other countries
41
43
35
40
56
72
74
81
65
76
% Foreign heavy lorries Sum
8.5
8.2
7.9
8.3
10.2
10.9
12.1
12.9
11.7
12.0
1131
1168
1067
1096
1233
1288
1197
1243
1293
1051
Table 7.3. Heavy Goods Vehicles involved in injury accidents reported by the police 19942001 and home country in Sweden
93
Since becoming members of the European Union, the volume of foreign Heavy Goods Vehicle traffic has increased in Sweden and in 2003 these vehicles were involved in 12.0 % of the injury accidents reported by the police. The definitions used in accident statistics has changed from the year of 2003 in Sweden, which can explain the drop in 2003. With exception of this year the number of fatalities and injured has generally increased over this period. Nationality
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Swedish
6,0%
8,2%
8,1%
7,5%
8,5%
6,4%
8,8%
8,6%
9.3%
8,6%
Foreign
8,3%
9,4%
8,3%
15,4%
11,9%
5,0%
11,7%
6,9%
10.6%
7.1%
Table 7.4. The proportion fatal accidents of injury accidents in Sweden for Swedish and foreign Heavy Goods Vehicles 1994-2003. The average value during the period 1994-2001 shows that 7.8 % of the injury accidents result in a fatal accident for Swedish vehicles compared to 9.3 % for foreign Heavy Goods Vehicles. This is not a significant difference on the 5 %-level. 7.2.2
Foreign heavy goods vehicles in the Netherlands
Nationality Dutch Other countries % Foreign heavy lorries Sum
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
203
205
171
150
126
155
149
14
18
17
17
16
16
17
23
6,5%
8,1%
9,0%
10,2%
11,3%
9,4%
10,2%
14,0%
217
223
188
167
142
171
166
164
2002
141 111
2003 136
7
12
5,9%
8,1%
118
148
Table 7.5. Heavy Goods Vehicles involved in fatal accidents reported by the police 19942003 and home country in the Netherlands
Nationality
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Dutch
1774
1810
1689
1750
1704
1815
1639
1593
2002
2003
1354
1236
Other countries % Foreign heavy lorries
188
188
170
227
225
239
213
248
206
185
9,6%
9,4%
9,1%
11,5%
11,7%
11,6%
11,5%
13,5%
Sum
1962
1998
1859
1977
1929
2054
1852
1841
13,2% 1560
13,0% 1421
Table 7.6. Heavy Goods Vehicles involved in injury accidents reported by the police 19942003 and home country in the Netherlands The situation in the Netherlands with Heavy Goods Vehicles seems to be of the same magnitude as in Sweden. The proportion of foreign Heavy Goods Vehicles involved in injury accidents has also increased during the period of 1994-2003 as in Sweden.
Heavy Goods Vehicles Dutch Foreign
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
11,4%
11,3%
10,1%
8,6%
7,4%
8,5%
9,1%
8,9%
8,2%
11,0%
7,4%
9,6%
10,0%
7,5%
7,1%
6,7%
8,0%
9,3%
3,4%
6,5%
Table 7.7. The proportion fatal accidents of injury accidents in the Netherlands for Dutch and foreign Heavy Goods Vehicles 1994-2003. 94
The average value during the period 1994-2003 shows that 9.5 % of the injury accidents result in a fatal accident in the Netherlands compared to 7.8 % for foreign Heavy Goods Vehicles. This is valid for each year and a significant difference. This difference indicates that accidents involving Dutch heavy goods vehicles are more severe than accidents involving foreign heavy goods vehicles. This can be due to the fact that foreign heavy goods vehicles use the high level road network much more than the Dutch ones, so that, as a consequence, the Dutch vehicles are much more exposed to other (and especially vulnerable) road users. Since the Dutch motorway network is larger than in Sweden, this can explain the difference between the two countries. 7.2.3 Foreign heavy goods vehicles in Great Britain Foreign Heavy Goods Vehicles in Great Britain are involved in 3 % of all fatal accidents involving Heavy Goods Vehicles compared about 8-15 % in Sweden and 6-14 % in the Netherlands. The proportions seem to be increasing both in Sweden and the Netherlands. About 6-7 % of all Heavy Goods Vehicles involved in injury accidents are foreign Heavy Goods Vehicles in Great Britain compared to 9-13 % in The Netherlands and 8-12 % in Sweden. The low involvement of foreign motor vehicles in Great Britain results often in information of nationality not being included in the registration forms from the police. The data from Great Britain has been corrected for this lack of information.
7.3
Country differences and similarities
One difference which has been mentioned is the vehicle length allowed in Sweden and in the other two countries. As Sweden allow 25.25 meters length a lorry with a trailer is very common in Sweden and especially in the forest industry. In Great Britain and the Netherlands a tractor with a semi trailer dominates. The use of the latter type of vehicle is also increasing in Sweden as Swedish cars (or semi trailers) are used abroad. The length of 25.25 metres in Sweden means more effective transports but the benefit disappear as the average transportation distance is longer in Sweden compared to Great Britain and the Netherlands. One similarity is the vehicle speed limit of 80 km/h in Sweden and the Netherlands and 50 miles/h (80.45 km/h) in Great Britain. This is an EU-law as these kinds of vehicles are required to be equipped with a speed limiter which makes it difficult (impossible) to drive faster than 90 km/h. The Netherlands has a general speed limit of 80 km/h which corresponds to the speed limit of heavy goods vehicles. A general speed limit of 50m/h (80 km/h) is not used extensively in Great Britain and does not exist at all in Sweden. It seems to be relatively easy to disable the speed limiter and it is difficult to enforce this group of vehicles. They normally drive faster than the speed limit of 80 km/h in all three countries. Depending on their size, heavy goods vehicles can be difficult to drive on roads inside urban areas and are sometimes forbidden on these roads. One way to deal with this to reload to smaller lorries at terminals close to the main roads in the neighbourhood of the cities in Sweden and the Netherlands, especially in Sweden.
7.4 Recent interventions to reduce the risk The introduction of a speed limiter for heavy goods vehicles in Sweden in 1995 resulted in an increase in the average speed of these vehicles. Cargo capacity has been increased by 95
developing “bigger” and “heavier” heavy goods vehicles. The design safety – under run guards, cab strength, improved side and back visions, etc. - of these vehicles has been improved but the physical law of moving energy that produces high impact forces in an accident situation cannot be avoided. In the accident statistics presented above it is also difficult to see that there has been any improvement in the injury outcome of accidents involving heavy goods vehicles such as that seen in other road user groups. One alternative for moving goods is to use rail or sea transportation for long distance transport. But a big problem is that a key feature of the use of heavy goods vehicles is to serve factories or other outlets just-in-time. It is possible that this move to just-in- time deliveries has encouraged higher heavy goods vehicle speeds, but there is no evidence to substantiate this. From traffic safety point of view only very few improvements have occurred recently in goods vehicle transport. One is that a seat belt law has been introduced for heavy goods vehicle drivers in the Netherlands (1991) and in Sweden (1999). However seatbelt usage remains limited among drivers even when a belt is fitted. An alcolock system for heavy goods vehicles is on the agenda in Sweden and some transport companies have put them into their heavy goods vehicles or are planning to do so. In the Netherlands, alcohol is less a problem for truck drivers than for car drivers. However driving task capability and especially fatigue have been identified as significant problems. Respecting working hours and driving schedules are helpful, eventually supported by recently introduced journey data recorders and accident data recorders or driver monitoring devices. Effects of these measures will be highest if they are based in a wide spread safety culture of the concerning transport company (SWOV, 2005). An old measure, which has been discussed again recently in the Netherlands, is restriction of the use of heavy goods vehicles during certain time periods, for example part of weekends. Blind spot monitoring devices (camera or mirror) are mandatory for lorries (>3500 kg) in the Netherlands since 2003. They have a potential to significantly reduce conflicts between trucks turning to the right and slow traffic. First effects regarding cyclist accidents were positive but further research into the effects has been announced. Furthermore, devices for rollover stability, curve speed and lane departure warning are being developed, though not all effects are clear yet and they are not yet legally supported. The application of protective devices on heavy goods vehicles is stimulated. Examples are side underrun protection systems and frontal underrun protection systems. These measures can decrease the incompatibility of heavy goods vehicles with other road users and therefore reduce injury risks. The increasing length of motorways over the past three decades has had a beneficial effect on traffic safety, as it has to some extent reduced the interaction between passenger cars and heavy goods vehicles. However, the width of the motorways have not increased in spite of heavy goods vehicles becoming broader; increasing congestion on motorways has also resulted in the interaction between the two vehicle types increasing again. Median barrier on roads of 13 meter width have been installed when the number of lanes has changed from 2 to 3 and the head-on collisions between HGV and passenger cars has been strongly reduced.
7.5 Discussion of difference and or/similarities between the countries Heavy goods vehicles are an important and unique part of the transport system. But mixing heavy goods vehicles with ordinary passenger cars presents a similar potential energy 96
mismatch when accidents occur as mixing passenger cars with vulnerable road users. In the same way that the mismatch between passenger cars and vulnerable road users can be reduced by reducing car speeds. The negative results of impacts with heavy goods vehicles can only be resolved by reducing their speeds or by replacing them by other means of goods transport. Who is to blame in these impacts is not particularly important; the fatality will virtually always be in the occupant of the lighter vehicle or the unprotected road user. This is illustrated by the number of fatalities in collisions with other road user groups distributed on the other road user groups and HGV (Table 7.7).
Sweden 2003
Fatality in collision with HGV
Fatality in HGV -
Single HGV
Great Britain Fatality in collision Fatality in HGV with HGV
3 (3)
-
Netherlands Fatality in collision with HGV
4 (3)
12 (3)
Pedestrian
8 (9)
94 (25)
Cyclist
4 (5)
25 (7)
19 (15)
1 (-)
11 (8)
3 (1)
10 (8)
2 (2)
38 (10)
5 (4)
Car
54 (62)
161 (42)
Bus
4 (5)
LGV
7 (8)
Moped Motorcycle
Other
2 (2)
11 (3)
1 (-)
-
9 (2)
14 (11) 2 (2) 2 (2)
9 (2)
3 vehicles Sum
63 (48)
3 (1) 3 (3)
HGV
5 (1)
Fatality in HGV
13 (3) 81 (93)
6 (7)
349 (92)
31 (8)
122 (94)
8 (6)
Table 7.7. Fatalities in single accidents and collisions with Heavy Goods Vehicles and distributed on different road user groups 2003 in Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands. (percentages of total fatalities in brackets) As seen from Table 7.7 it is the collision partner who is killed in most collisions with Heavy Goods Vehicles. It is very seldom that the fatality is the Heavy Goods Vehicle occupant if the collision partner is not a Heavy Goods Vehicle. The pattern of involvement of other road users reflects the differences in the general distribution of fatalities between modes in the different countries. Estimated fatality rates per goods vehicle km in the three countries (Table 7.1) appear to be fairly similar, although slightly higher in Sweden and the Netherlands than in Great Britain (15 % lower).
7.6 Conclusions The fatality rate is about three to four times higher in all three countries in an accident with a heavy goods vehicle than in the average traffic accident. Heavy Goods Vehicles make up about 5-6 % of the traffic in Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands and are involved in 11 -16 % of the fatal accidents. Foreign Heavy Goods Vehicles traffic seems to be growing in the Netherlands and Sweden and is now over 10 % of the Heavy Goods Vehicle Traffic in the countries. But the amount of through traffic in these countries is still smaller than in many other European countries. Great Britain is however one of the countries with a very small amount of through traffic. Sweden has some through traffic from Norway, Finland and also from the Baltic countries and Russia. The location of the Netherlands in the upper corner of Europe limits through 97
traffic in that country. In comparison Germany has a much higher level of through traffic and has introduced a fee per kilometre driven for through traffic in 2005. It is possible that such a measure may be considered in the future in the three SUN countries. The effects on traffic safety are not clear yet. There may be a problem in the sense that high fees on motorways could stimulate heavy goods vehicles to drive on the lower order network, which will decrease safety. The main problem of higher injury severity is however associated with all Heavy Goods Vehicles independent of whether they are national or foreign due to their speed, weight and size and sometimes the transport of hazardous materiel. Thus there are many reasons to use other safer transportation modes than Heavy Goods Lorries to avoid fatalities. And as far they have to be used, more effort should be directed towards measures at the level of both infrastructure, vehicle and driver. The mix of heavy goods vehicles and other (especially) vulnerable traffic should be minimised, e.g. by reducing driving in urban areas. The driver should be optimally capable of driving e.g. by appropriate training, no fatique, no alcohol, and by support in dangerous situations, e.g. by blind spot monitoring, rollover stability warning. Furthermore, the incompatibility of heavy goods vehicles with respect to other road users should be reduced e.g. by side and frontal underrun protection systems. In an optimal situation all these measures are part of a wide spread safety culture of a transport company that is supported by governments.
98
8
Speed management
8.1 Introduction This chapter presents the speed limit systems in the three countries, the speed limits, the speeds, the proportion of drivers exceeding the speed limits, the enforcement and the sanctions. Today all roads have a maximum speed limit in all countries, with the exception of some German motorways. These limits should comply with road layout and functionality. Some of the car drivers drive faster than the speed limits and in order to minimize these offences and the size of the offences, police forces have an enforcement capacity. It is inconsistent that the maximum speed capability of cars is still increasing in spite of the fact that speed limits are unlikely to be increased because of the negative effects of speed on traffic safety, the environment and in some cases on throughput as well.. Speed limits have been more and more harmonized between different countries and the speed limit of 50 km/h is very frequent in urban areas while the speed limit on rural motorways differs normally from 100130 km/h.
8.2 Extent of the problem Attitude surveys suggest that very few drivers in most countries want to lower the speed limit on rural motorways and about half of the drivers want to increase this speed limit. Drivers are more content with speed limits on other roads, but relatively high proportions still exceed these limits. The measure that appeared to be most effective until now in reducing speeding is police enforcement and the sanctions associated with it. As traffic safety is directly dependent on traffic speeds the level of speeding seen in any country has a major influence on the number of fatalities, assuming the speed limits are set appropriately for the road standard. This chapter discusses whether speed limits are set consistently in the SUN countries, the extent of speeding that occurs and the influence on accident patterns, and what further speed management measures are being considered. Issues associated with enforcement generally and with the use of speed camera enforcement specifically are discussed in chapters 9 and 10 8.2.1 The basic speed limit situation in Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands Table 8.1 shows the basic speed limit systems in Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands. All existing speed limits are represented. Sometimes the speed limits in the table can be one step lower except of the lowest speed limit. (Note that the speed limits in Great Britain have been transformed from miles per hour to kilometres per hour.) Great Britain has slightly lower speed limits on main roads in urban areas but makes less extensive use of 30km/h limits in residential areas. Rural speed limits are rather more variable. Sweden generally has lower speed limits in these areas. The Netherlands has a substantial network of high standard non-motorway roads to which their higher (100km/h) limit is applied. In Britain the 60mph (96.5km/h) limit is standard for rural roads with 50mph (80km/h) mainly being used on sections with higher accident risk.
99
Rural area Two- or three-lane roads of very high standard (13 m)
High road standard
Low road standard
Motorways
110
110
90
70
90
70
50
30
112.6
-
96.5
80.5/64
80.5
64.4
48.3
32.2
120/100
-
100
80/60
100
70
50
30
Motorways
Sweden Great Britain Netherlands
Urban area
Traffic route in urban areas
Main streets
Residen-tial areas, schools or city centres
Table 8.1. Speed limits in Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands in km/h 8.2.2
Self reported speeding in SARTRE
The SARTRE III surveys of car driver opinions which was performed in 2002 (Sartre III, 2002) show the following results for some of the questions about speed and speed measures in Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands. Drive faster than the speed limit on Motorways
Never or rarely
-Sometimes-
Often-Always
Sweden
36.1
28.8
35.2
Great Britain
43.7
29.9
26.4
Netherlands
38.2
31.2
30.6
Drive faster than the speed limit on Main roads
Never or rarely
-Sometimes-
Often-Always
Sweden
40.0
33.1
27.0
Great Britain
58.4
28.2
13.4
Netherlands
47.9
30.3
21.8
Drive faster than the speed limit on country roads
Never or rarely
-Sometimes-
Often-Always
Sweden
59.0
26.6
14.4
Great Britain
70.5
21.1
8.4
Netherlands
61.2
24.6
14.3
Drive faster than the speed limit in built-up areas
Never or rarely
-Sometimes-
Often-Always
Sweden
82.7
12.3
5.0
Great Britain
84.2
12.0
3.7
Netherlands
70.2
23.0
6.8
Table 8.2. Behaviour of driving faster than the speed limit The higher standard of the road the more drivers, often or always, say that they are driving faster than the speed limit. The reported observance of the speed limit is generally best in 100
Great Britain, worst in Sweden for rural areas, and rather poor for the Netherlands in builtup areas. The latter may result partly from greater use of the lower speed limit of 30 km/h in the Netherlands, compared with Great Britain and Sweden. The speed limit on Motorways ought to be……..
Lower
As it is
Higher
Sweden
3.0
42.8
54.2
Great Britain
4.2
52.4
43.1
Netherlands
3.0
43.9
53.1
Table 8.3. Opinion of the speed limits on motorways The attitude towards existing speed limits is quite supportive except for the speed limit on motorways, where a majority of drivers want a higher speed limit. Car drivers support a limit to the maximum speed capability of cars to about the same extent as they would support a system which prevents them from driving faster than the speed limit. Drivers in Great Britain are more favourable to these solutions than drivers in the other two countries (Tables 8.4 and 8.5). Manufactures modify the vehicles to restrict the maximum speed Sweden
Not in favour
Fairly favourable
Very favourable
53.6
26.0
20.4
Great Britain
27.0
32.2
31.8
Netherlands
48.5
32.0
19.5
Table 8.4. Opinion of a maximum speed of cars by the manufactures A system which prevented you exceeding the speed limit
Not in favour
Fairly favourable
Very favourable
Sweden
52.8
27.8
19.4
Great Britain
31.8
34.2
34.0
Netherlands
54.7
26.5
18.8
Table 8.5. Opinion of a system to prevent drivers to exceed the speed limits
8.3
Speed limit systems
8.3.1 Sweden In table 8.6 the speed limit system of Sweden is presented for different roads and different vehicles
101
Builtup area
Residential areas, schools etc.
Express road
110
110/90
110/90
110/90
90
70
50
30
Buses
90
90
90
90
90
70
50
30
Heavy lorries
90
90
80
80
80
70
50
30
Agricultural traktors
50
50
50
50
50
50
30
EU-moped class I
45
45
45
45
45
45
30
Swedish moped/EU.moped class II
30/25
30/25
30/25
30/25
30/25
30/25
30/25
Cars, motorcycles and light lorries
Normal road
Low standard roads outside built-up area
Motorway
Speed limit
2+1 road
Other high standard road
Table 8.6. The speed limit system in Sweden The basic speed limit outside built-up areas is 70 km/h, and 90 and 110 km/h are regarded as exceptions from this limit dependant on achieving a high road standard or there being a fairly low traffic flow in relation to the road standard. 70 km/h is also used as a local speed limit in intersections on these higher speed roads. Heavy lorries and passenger cars with a trailer have the maximum speed limit of 80 km/h. The corresponding average journey speed is presented in Table 8.7 for Sweden. Data on average speed is normally available for all vehicles or for “passenger cars” and “lorries” without or with a trailer. Rural area
Urban area
Motorways (110)
Two- or threelane road of very high standard (13 m) (110)
Sweden (Total)
118
107.6
88.4
67.4
Passenger cars
120
109.9
89.5
Lorries
85 (80)
84.5(80)
81.2 (80)
High road standard (90)
Traffic routes in urban areas (70)
Main streets (50)
Residential areas, schools or city centres (30)
100
62.0
47.8
35
67.9
102
62.8
48.8
35
66.0
85 (80)
55.1
44.9
35
Low road standard (70)
Motor-ways (90)
Table 8.7. Total average (travel speed during the summer period) speed in Sweden in km/h. Source :Swedish Road Administration 2003
8.3.2
Great Britain
The speed limit system of Great Britain is presented in Table 8.8. The speed limits are in mph
102
Non-built-up area Speed limits
Dual carriageway
Motorways
Cars and motorcycles Light goods vehicles Buses/coaches < 12 meter Buses/coaches > 12 meter Single heavy lorry < 7.5 tonnes Articulated vehicles < 7,5 tonnes Articulated vehicles >7,5 tonnes
Built-up area Single carriageway
40 mph
30 mph
20 mph
70
70
60
40
30
20
70
70
60
40
30
20
70
60
50
40
30
20
60
60
50
40
30
30
70
60
60
40
30
20
60
60
50
40
30
20
60
50
40
40
30
20
30
30
30
20
Mopeds
70 mph = 112,6 km/h. 60 mph = 96,5 km/h, 40 mph = 64,4 km/h. Source: Transport Statistics Bulletin, Vehicle speeds in Great Britain 2003, National Statistics.
Table 8.8. The speed limit system of Great Britain The average speeds in 2003 are given in the Transport Statistic Bulletin and are presented in Table 8.9; sites are chosen to represent free-flow conditions. Non-built-up area Speed limits Cars and motorcycles Light goods vehicles
Built-up area Dual carriageway
Motorways
Single carriageway
40 mph
30 mph
20 mph
71
69
48
36
31
-
70
68
48
37
31
-
Buses/coaches
59
58
45
34
28
-
Single heavy lorry < 7.5 tonnes
54
52
42
36
31
-
Articulated vehicles
54
53
44
33
31
-
-
-
-
-
Mopeds
Table 8.9. The average speeds at different speed limits in Great Britain. Source: Transport Statistics Bulletin, Vehicle speeds in Great Britain 2003, National Statistics Average speeds on many single carriageways are well below the speed limit of 60mph, due to the alignment of these roads. The Department for Transport is currently consulting on a revision of the circular advising policy on setting speed limits on these roads to encourage more use of 50mph limits on these roads, but has not proposed a general lower speed limit for these roads. Appropriate speeds for these roads have been assessed on the basis of balancing mobility and safety costs but without a lower national limit it is likely that extensive changes will not be made. The introduction of a lower general limit would have enabled the use of the higher limit to be more clearly associated with roads of higher standard.
103
8.3.3
The Netherlands
The speed limit system of the Netherlands is presented in Table 8.10. Speed limits
Motorway
Cars and motorcycles Vans, lorries and coaches Motor vehicle towing trailers
Main roads
Other roads outside built-up areas
Other roads inside built-up areas
Certain roads inside built-up areas
120/100
100
80/60
50
30
80
80
80
50
30
80
80
80
50
30
-
-
45
45
30
-
-
40
30
30
-
-
25
25
25
Microcars Mopeds and motorpowered invalid carriages Motor-assisted bicycles and agricultural vehicles
Table 8.10. The speed limit system of the Netherlands The Netherlands has higher speed limits for passenger cars and motorcycles on motorways and main roads than Sweden and Great Britain.
Netherlands (Total) Passenger cars Lorries
85
71
115
89.4
74.0
87 (80)
83 (80)
67
70.9
52.3
97
71.0
52.4
83 (80)
69.6
48.6
Residential areas, schools or city centres (30)
Main streets (50)
Traffic routes in urban areas (70)
Motorways (100)
*
Residential areas (60)
Low road standard (80)
Urban area
High road standard (100)
Motorways (120)
Rural area
Heavy lorries and passenger cars with a trailer have the maximum speed limit of 80 km/h.
Table 8.11. Average travel speed for passenger cars and lorries in the Netherlands in km/h. Source: http://www.swov.nl/en/kennisbank/index.htm; Catshoek, 1996; Catshoek et al., 1994. Although the speed limits in rural areas are higher in the Netherlands than in Sweden the average speed is lower in the Netherlands in the corresponding environment. In both countries speeding occurs among drivers of larger vehicles and towing vehicles, both of which are subject to a lower limit. 8.3.4
Exceeding the speed limit
It is very common in all three countries that a significant proportion of drivers drive faster than the speed limit. This habit results to some extent from tolerant speed enforcement regimes under which speeds that are less than 5-10 km/h over the existing speed limit are not enforced. As almost all drivers know this, some of them use the information to drive faster than the speed limit but lower than the tolerance level used by the police.
104
Percentage exceeding the speed limit
Percentage exceeding the speed limit in Sweden 2003 100
Cars
Lorries w ith trailers or bus/coach Sum
80 60 40 20 0 110 km/h
90 km/h
70 km/h
50 km/h
Main street and 70 km/h
Main Lokal street street and 50 km/h
Speed limit Figure 8.1. The percentage of drivers exceeding the speed limit at different speed limits in Sweden. As the speed limit for lorries with trailers is 80 km/h the percentage exceeding this speed limit is very high given that on these roads the speed limit for cars is only 110 km/h. More than half of the cars exceed the speed limit on all types of road outside built-up areas These percentages are also likely to be underestimates as the calculations are based on the travel speed (the time mean speed instead of the space mean speed) which is lower than the spot speed. Percentage exceeding speed limits on different roads 2003 in Great Britain Motorcycle
Percentage exceeding speed linmit
100
Cars 80
Light goods vehicles Articulated vehicles
60
Buses/coaches 40 20 0 Motorw ays
Dual carriagew ays
Single carriagew ays
40 kpm
30 kpm
Roads/Streets
Figure 8.2. The percentage of drivers exceeding the speed limit at different speed limits in Great Britain In Britain, motorcycles seem to exceed speed limits in general and many articulated vehicles to exceed the speed limits in nonbuilt-up roads other than motorways. On dual 105
carriageways where the speed limit for cars is 70mph, 80% of articulated lorries exceed their speed limit of 50mph.
Percentageexceedingthespeedlimit
Pe rce nta ge e x ce e ding the spe e d limit in Sw e de n 2003
100
Cars
Lorries w ith trailers or bus/coach Sum
80 60 40 20 0 110 km/h
90 km/h 70 km/h
50 km/h
Main street and 70 km/h
Local street
Main street and 50 km/h
Spe e d limit
Figure 8.3.Percentage of drivers driving faster than the speed limit in the Netherlands The situation in the Netherlands seems to be a little better than in the other two countries for cars but the Netherlands have the same problem with heavy lorries on roads with high speed limits for cars as in Sweden and Great Britain. The figures above are based on data obtained by separate surveys in each country and some of the differences might result from different measurement methods.
8.4 Risks at different speed limits 8.4.1 The distribution of fatalities on different speed limits in Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands Sweden Speed Limit
Great Britain
Fatal accidents
%
Speed limit
Fatal accidents
The Netherlands %
Speed limit
Fatal accidents
%
30 km/h
5
1.0%
20 mph
4
0.1%
30 km/h
46
4.9%
50 km/h
119
24.3%
30 mph
1051
32.4%
50 km/h
301
32.0%
70 km/
132
26.9%
40 mph
267
8.2%
50 mph
139
4.3%
80 km/h
464
49.4%
90 km/h
183
37.3% 60 mph
1354
41.7% 100 km/h
51
5.4%
120 km/h
78
8.3%
110 km/h
33
6.7% 70 mph
Unknown
18
3.7%
490
100.0%
432
13.3% -
3247
100.0%
-
-
940
100.0%
Table 8.12. The distribution of fatal accidents among roads with different speed limits in Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands 2003. Source: National statistics. The Netherlands had the largest proportion of fatalities at low speed limits (30 and 50 km/h) in urban areas. Sweden has the lowest proportion in urban areas. Great Britain has more 106
than half of its fatalities on high speed limit roads (96.5 and 112.6 km/h) while the two other countries have very few killed on roads with speed limits above 90km/h, which are normally motorways or high standard rural roads. As vehicle kilometres are not available for the three countries distributed on different speed limits it is not possible to make any relevant comparisons of fatality rates. But looking at the proportions in Table 8.15 the speed limit of 60 mph in Great Britain seems to be used too often and the speed limit of 50 mph is used too seldom. 8.4.2 The estimated severity of accidents at different speed limits in Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands Below is an attempt to present the severity of accidents at different speed limits by calculating the number of fatal accidents in relation to fatal and severe injury accidents. Sweden Speed limit
Fatal accidents
Fatal accidents / Fatal accidents and severe injury accidents
Severe injury accidents
30 km/h
5
56
0,08
50 km/h
119
1287
0,08
70 km/h
132
912
0,13
90 km/h
183
683
0,21
110 km/h
33
209
0,14
18
273
0,06
490
3420
0,13
Unknown Great Britain Speed limit 20 mph 30 km/h 30 mph 50 km/h 40 mph 64 km/h 50 mph 80 km/h 60 mph 96 km/h 70 mph 113 km/h
Fatal accidents
Fatal accidents / Fatal accidents and severe injury accidents
Severe injury accidents
4
81
0,05
1051
16488
0,06
267
2310
0,12
139
684
0,20
1354
7322
0,18
432
2018
0,21
3247
28913
0,11
The Netherlands Speed limit
Fatal accidents
Severe injury accidents
Fatal accidents / Fatal accidents and severe injury accidents
30 km/h
46
568
0,07
50 km/h
301
4962
0,06
80 km/h
464
1667
0,22
100 km/h
51
397
0,11
120 km/h
78
433
0,15
940
8027
0,10
Table 8.13. Accident severity, Fatal accident/Fatal accidents and severe accidents, at different speed limits in Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands 2003
107
On the basis of Table 8.16, in Sweden some of the roads with 90 km/h limits have a high fatality risk and ought to be improved or given a lower speed limit. In Great Britain high severity ratios can be seen on roads with limits of 50, 60 and 70 mph; this suggests the standard of these roads should be increased or the speed limit lowered. The highest severity ratio in the Netherlands occurs on roads with 80 km/h limit; again improved road standards or a speed limit of 70 km/h could be considered. Because of the different reporting characteristics, it is difficult to use the data in Table 8.13 to compare between different countries but comparisons within a country are relevant. 8.4.3 Fatality and injury accident rate for different road classes in Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands Exposure is estimated in the three countries for motorways, other rural roads and urban roads. This classification can be use as a surrogate for speed limits as in general terms it implies high speed limits, moderate speed limits and low speed limits. The fatality rates for motorways, other rural roads and urban roads are presented in Table 8.14 and in Figure 8.4. Motorways
Other rural roads
Sweden
Great Britain
Great Britain
Netherlands
Sweden
Great Britain
Netherlands
0.26
0.24
0.21
1.05
1.03
0.68
0.43
0.82
0.99
12.52
9.41
4.56
18.58
22.67
17.05
34.98
86.06
70.40
Fatality rate Injury accident rate
Netherlands Sweden
Urban roads
Exposure 105 929 480 381 2218 482 240 1801 348 Table 8.14.Fatality rate and injury accident rate and exposure (100 million vehicle kilometres) on
Fatality rate for different road types in Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20
Motorways
Other rural roads
Netherlands
Great Britain
Sweden
Netherlands
Great Britain
Sweden
Netherlands
Great Britain
0.00
Sweden
Fatalities per 100 millionvehicle kilometres
motorways, other rural roads and urban roads in Sweden, Great Britain and in the Netherlands 2003.
Urban roads
Figure 8.4.Fatality rate, the number of fatalities per 100 million vehicle kilometres, on motorways, other rural roads and urban roads in Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands 2003. Source: IRTAD
108
For motorways fatality rate is lowest in the Netherlands and highest in Sweden. The rates for other rural roads follow a similar order by country. For urban roads the situation is the opposite and the highest fatality rate is in the Netherlands. Motorways have in general very low fatality rates as intersection accidents and accidents with vulnerable road users should be relatively infrequent.
120 100 80 60 40 20
Motorways
Other rural roads
Netherlands
Great Britain
Sweden
Netherlands
Great Britain
Sweden
Netherlands
Great Britain
0 Sweden
Number of injury accidets per 100 millionvehicle kilometres
Injury accident rate for different road types in Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands
Urban roads
Figure 8.5. Injury accident rate, the number of injury accidents per 100 million vehicle kilometres, on motorways, other rural roads and urban roads in Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands. Source: IRTAD The pattern for motorways is the same for all Injury accident rate as for fatality rate. The injury accident rate for both other rural roads and urban roads is highest for Great Britain, but the overall level of injury accident reporting is higher in Great Britain. Sweden has a lower injury accident rate on urban roads compared to Great Britain and the Netherlands. The injury accident rates on motorways and other rural roads are generally lower than on urban roads, partly due to higher proportions of vulnerable road users involved in accidents in urban areas.
8.5 Enforcement and sanctions 8.5.1 Sweden Today the main tool used to enforce speeds is the laser instrument, which requires the presence of two policemen. Instrumented cars, often fitted with a video recorder to provide evidence of measurements when following cars, are also used. Automatic speed cameras have only been installed and used to a limited extent. However under Swedish law the police need to identify the driver, which takes extra time compared to only identifying the car owner. Efforts are currently being made to change the law.
109
Size of fines Infringement km/h
Speed limit 50 km/ or lower-SEK
1-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-50 51-
1000* 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2000 Prosecution Prosecution
Speed limit 70 km/h or higher – SEK 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2000 Prosecution
SEK 1000 = ECU 91 (January 2005)
Table 8.15. The size of the fines for different speed infringements in Sweden The highest fine under the Swedish system has not been changed for many years and is today SEK 2 500. This means that the relative cost has been reduced for the road user and it is much cheaper for the road user today than it was 20 years ago to be caught infringing the law. As the number of recorded speed infringements is about the same each year, in spite of the traffic having more than doubled in the last twenty years, the probability of being detected by the police has halved (130 000 to 140 000 drivers are caught each year by the police). Automatic speed cameras have been introduced but have until now only been a marginal part of the speed enforcement effort. The rules to which the police work today allow the driver to drive at 10 % more than the speed limit without their intervention. If the offence goes to the prosecutor the offender’s driving licence is withdrawn for at least two months (See also chapter 9). Driving more than 20-30 km/h over the speed limit results in suspension of the driving licence for one to two months or a warning. Very high speeds can result in 8 month suspension of the driving licence. Speeding offences or other traffic offences are saved for a five year period and the offender’s driving licence can be withdrawn for a period from 1 month to 3 years. If you have several “small” offences during a five year period you also can lose your licence. If the driving licence is withdrawn for one year or more a new licence cannot be obtained without retaking a driving test. 8.5.2 Great Britain There have for some time been informal guidelines for magistrates on how to deal with different levels of offence. Recently, the British Department for Transport and the Home Office have been consulting on defining graduated penalties in law for different excess speeds above the speed limit. There was scope previously for speeding offences which involved a court hearing to attract either 3 to 6 penalty points, fines up to £1000, or even disqualification depending on the seriousness of offences. Depending on the circumstances, other offences such as dangerous driving might also result. But most current offences are dealt with by fixed penalties - 3 points and £60 fine. The discussion note (Graduated fixed penalties for speed offences – discussion note, Road Safety Division, Department of Transport, 2004) proposes to modify the previous general tariff of 3 penalty points to a scale of 2 points for speeds up to 39 mph in 30mph area, 3 points for up to 44mph and 6 points for 45mph or above (and similar scales for other speed limits) together with a sliding scale for fines, £40, £60 and £100. Although there is a general agreement to move to a graduated system, most safety engineers object to lowering the bottom band below the current 3 point penalty. The tolerance in speed allowed by the police in 2004 varies from 5 mph over the 30mph limit to 9mph over the 70mph limit. Court proceedings will follow if the speed is 26 mph 110
higher than the speed limits of 40-70 mph, 20 mph over the speed limit 30 km/h and 15 mph over the speed limit of 20 km/h. If a driver has received 12 penalty points the offender’s driving licence is withdrawn . 8.5.3 The Netherlands Speed tolerance level: For 80 km/roads excess speeds are not enforced until speed reach 87 km/hour. For 100 and 120 km/h roads excess speeds above 107 and 127 km/h respectively are enforced. All drivers also get a special deduction in assessed speed to compensate for possible measurement error. This deduction is 3 km/h for speeds under 100 km/hour and 4 km/h for speeds above 100 km/hour. Thus, the violation category of 0 to 5 km/hour on 80 km/hour roads refers to a measured speed of 87 or 88 km/hour; the violation category of 6 to 10 km/hour refers to a measured speed of 89 to 93 km/hour. Speed violation Sanction registered under administrative law
Sanction registered under criminal law
Motorways
Other roads
up to 10 km/hour
30
30
11 to 15 km/hour
45
45
16 to 20 km/hour
55
70
21 to 25 km/hour
90
100
26 to 30 km/hour
115
125
31 to 35 km/hour
145
205
36 to 40 km/hour
170
240
> 30 km/hour
Violation registered under criminal law; dependent upon case history prosecution by court
> 50 km/hour
Revocation of licence
Table 8.16. Sanctions for different speeding violations in the Netherlands; prize level 2004. (Source: Bureau of Traffic Enforcement (BVOM) of the Public Prosecutor's Office. Site:http://.verkeeershandhavaing.nl/overtredingen)
8.6 Interventions to reduce the accident risk All available research and experiment shows that lower speeds means lower risks and above all less accident consequences. These effects can also be achieved by better protection systems for car occupants, improved road standard and separation between cars and vulnerable road users. The two first measures will however be less effective with increasing speeds and therefore are most effective at lower speeds. The acceptance of the current speed limit system is fairly good based on the public opinion but rather bad based on the level of offending the speed limits. Of course there exists in each country a group who want to increase the speed limit. Politicians can appear inclined to accept the wishes of these drivers in order to win votes. If this is done it is very likely to have a negative effect on safety, including the safety of the politicians themselves. As the resources available to society to improve roads are limited and a change to a newer and safer car model cannot be made each year, traffic safety improvement takes time. Traffic growth is still occurring in most countries, which tends to increase accident numbers; increased speeds make this situation worse. Today there is considerable potential to increase traffic safety by strict use and enforcement of speed limits. In some situations, lower speed limits are necessary, typically in urban areas and on the main road network where the road standard in relation to the traffic 111
volume is not acceptable. The sanction system differs a lot between the countries, but the tolerance limit, the lowest speed enforced by the police, appears too high in all three countries. Sweden and the Netherlands have the advantage of larger differences between the speed limits levels (20 km/h in Sweden and in the Netherlands even 30 km/h) than is typically seen in Great Britain (10mph, 16km/h). The 80 km/h limit for heavy trucks ought to be more strictly enforced and speeds of 90 km/h not allowed as they are today . The consequences of more extensive adaptation of the urban environment and the associated use of lower residential road speed limits is discussed in chapter 6 of the original SUNflower report (Koornstra et al). Although extensive use has been made of 30km/h limits in the Netherlands, much of the benefits in reduced fatalities in urban areas has come from encouragement of lower speed environments and better use of road space by different modes on main urban roads. Experience in introducing traffic calming measures and 30km/h zones in the three countries is described in Chapter 10 of the current report The different approaches to the use of speed camera enforcement and fixed penalty fines is described in Chapters 9 and 10 of this report; The Netherlands and Great Britain have made much more use of these techniques than Sweden, who are only now beginning to introduce camera technology. However Chapter 10 describes some of the difficulties that need to be overcome in gaining acceptance of these methods.
8.6.1 The experience of speed limit changes in the Netherlands since 1990 Local speed limit changes are still implemented in relation to the Dutch 'sustainable safety' program. These speed limit changes particularly concern conversions from 50 to 30 km/h zones in urban areas, and conversions from 80 to 60 km/h zones in rural areas. Results showed: •
50 to 30 km/h: o Mean reduction of 15% injury accidents (Vis & Kaal, 1993). o 26% reduction of injury accidents, 27% reduction in accidents with pedestrians, and 21% reduction of accidents with fatally or severely injured pedestrian (Bos & Dijkstra, 1998).
•
80 to 60 km/h: o Reduction of 18% injury accidents on stretches of road, and reduction of 50% injury accidents on junctions (particularly flank accidents). Reduction of 33% concerning severe injury accidents. Overall, speed limit reduction from 80 to 60 km/h in rural residential area's has resulted in 25% reduction of road accident victims (Beenker, 2004). It should be noted that conversion of roads from 80 to 60 km/h zones had not been performed randomly. Evaluations over a longer time period may therefore show smaller results due to 'regression to the mean'.
8.7 Explanation of differences and or similarities between the countries. Comparing the detail of the speed limit systems in Sweden, Great Britain and the Netherlands the basic system appears the same for urban areas but the two speed limits 50 and 30 km/h (close to 30 and 20 mph) are used in a different way. Use of the 30km/h limit is far more extensive in the Netherlands than in Great Britain. 112
The speed limit systems on rural roads for the three countries presents “two” different levels on motorways, 120 and 100 in the Netherlands and “110” in Great Britain and Sweden. Due to its limits being in terms of miles per hour Great Britain then have three different levels above 30 mph (50 km/h) while the Netherlands (100 and 80 km/h) and Sweden (90 and 70 km/) have just two different levels above 50 km/h. For the same two-lane standard of roads Sweden has the highest actual average car speeds (90 km/h) despite having lower speed limits than in Britain. The lowest average speeds on this type of road are in the Netherlands, where a network of higher quality (nonmotorway) roads sustains speeds of 100km/h relatively safely. The higher speeds in Sweden may may be encouraged by their much lower use of automatic speed enforcement methods. Many Swedish drivers clearly prefer to drive faster than current speed limits in rural areas, and are less receptive to proposal for automated measures to limit speeds. In urban areas, however average speeds in all three countries are similar, although use of lower limits on selective roads is more extensive in the Netherlands, and to a lesser extent in Sweden, than in Britain, Speeding is prevalent among lorry drivers in all three countries, despite speed limiters, and tolerances on enforcement speeds are relatively high. The outcome in terms of fatality rate for all vehicles shows Sweden to have the highest rate for vehicle km in rural areas and the lowest rate in urban areas. The reverse is true for the Netherlands which shows the highest rate for urban areas and the lowest rates for rural roads. It is to be expected that these rates will be influenced by both the traffic density and the mix of other traffic on the roads. In urban areas in the Netherlands and Great Britain there are high proportions of vulnerable road user casualties. On the rural roads, the low traffic flows in Sweden will tend to produce higher accident rates per vehicle km.
8.8 Conclusions The overall conclusion is that lower motor vehicle speeds reduce the fatality risk independent of environment. Even small speed reductions give remarkable fatality reductions. One percent reduction of the average speed reduces the number of fatalities by 4-5 percent. The speed limit system and traffic speeds are important in determining the risk and severity of accidents. The costs of reducing risk and severity by improving road and vehicle standards can be high and take a long time; reducing speed is potentially more costeffectiveness and has a more immediate effect on numbers of traffic fatalities. Working within an appropriate speed limit system, better enforcement and more effective sanction systems are an essential part of safety management. Increased co-operation between road authorities, traffic police, law administrators and car producers is important to achieve this but interventions must be clearly knowledge based and recognised as fair by road users. If excess speeds are prevented the speeds will be reduced by about 10 % on average which means a reduction of the number of fatalities by more than 30 %. It is recommended that Sweden consider making more use of automatic speed enforcement, but it is necessary to adjust the legislative system. This can however lead to a public reaction. As will be discussed in chapter 9, it may be conjectured that the Netherlands are making less than optimal use of automated enforcement methods, with perhaps too strong a focus on detecting a lot of offences instead of actually preventing them. Since direct large-scale evidence as to the road safety benefits of Dutch enforcement is not available this assertion has a speculative character and should be investigated more 113
fully. Furthermore, Britain is not making sufficient use of modifications to road environment and use of lower limits in residential areas. The Netherlands should increase their attention to 80 km/h roads, which have a very high fatality share. In addition they should make their road environment further comply with the relevant speed limits (on all road types). Especially in urban areas, with the strong mixture of different traffic participants, this can further improve the current situation. Road and vehicle engineering, education, and enforcement should go together in an integral approach. New technologies that support drivers in maintaining appropriate speeds (such as ISA) should be watched carefully for their added value. It is also recommended that both Sweden and Great Britain seek in the longer term to move to a lower speed limit for two lane rural roads, and develop a network of higher quality rural roads which can safely sustain higher speed limits; through this approach there should be clearer separation in Britain between the road standards (and speed limit bands) in the rural network.
114
9
Enforcement
9.1 Introduction Enforcement of traffic safety rules is a necessary requirement to achieving planned safety outcomes. A range of specific behaviours (drinking and driving, seat-belt wearing, speeding) are targeted in most countries by specific laws. But laws also cover more general aspects of driving style (dangerous driving, careless driving, inappropriate parking etc) that contribute to accident occurrence. In addition laws cover access to vehicle use, both in terms of initial access to the road and for those subject to sanctions following a traffic offence. The approach to enforcement in any country is determined by the laws that have been enacted and public perception of them, the extent of police activity to enforce these laws, and the actions of the courts to penalise offenders. These elements may be given different emphasis in relation to different types of offence in each country, as well as the importance of the overall role and implementation of enforcement within road safety policy being seen as different. The scope to provide simple comparisons is therefore limited. The first SUNflower report considered enforcement as part of the assessment of drinkdriving and seat belt wearing behaviour. This chapter considers a wider range of behaviours that influence road safety. It also explores the issues associated with measuring enforcement activity and its effectiveness, and the way in which the approach to enforcement both by enforcement agencies and by road users is changing in the context of general patterns of behaviour within society, and the effect this may have on reducing casualties.
9.2 Extent of the problem Better enforcement of existing traffic rules is seen as a key factor that will contribute towards achieving the European Commission’s target for casualty reduction. It is generally considered (Clifford Chance, 2003) that the greatest safety gains will be made in the areas of seat-belt wearing, drink-driving and speeding; three areas that are seen as major factors in the occurrence of fatal accidents. Although enforcement was not considered as a separate topic in the first SUNflower report (Koornstra et al), it was referred to in the seat belt wearing and drinking and driving chapters and therefore did identify a number of issues that are relevant to the enforcement picture in the SUN countries. Some of the statistics reported in Koornstra et al were that: Drink drive screening tests were made much more extensively in Sweden and the Netherlands than in Britain (a rate of 1 per 4 cars per year in Sweden, 1 in 7 cars in the Netherlands, and only 1 in 26 cars in Britain) - and the rate has fallen further in Britain since then • Penalties for drink driving were highest in Britain, with a minimum of 12 months disqualification in most cases, although the level of alcohol defining an offence (0.8% BAC) is higher than in the Netherlands (0.5%) and in Sweden (0.2%) • Experience in Sweden and elsewhere was claimed to show that the effect on accidents depends more on enforcement than on value of the limit • In Sweden 30% of detected drink drive offenders had no valid licence • In the UK, two out of every five drink-drive offenders were designated as ‘high risk’ (ie they were repeat offenders, had a BAC level well over that permitted, or refused to give a sample). 115
• • • •
In the UK it is estimated that a drinking driver is involved in 14% of all fatal traffic accidents. It is reported that in the UK there has been a marked increase (of 20%) in the number of young drivers involved; and that many pedestrians injured in accidents (around 40%) were over the drink-drive limit. In the Netherlands random surveys (during the night at weekends) found that about 4.5% of drivers were over the legal limit – a situation not very far from that in the UK). In contrast, the level of enforcement and the penalty fines for seat belt offences were low in all three countries. Compared with the number of drivers thought to be driving unbelted, only 10% were prosecuted each year in Sweden and Britain; in the Netherlands, an increase in enforcement in recent years had increased the proportion to 18%.
Koornstra et al notes that all three countries recognise the important contribution that enforcement activity can make to improved road safety but notes also that the amount of road traffic enforcement being conducted by the police appeared to be reducing in the late 1990s. This is partly explained by other higher priority activities requiring more effort and partly by the growing use of (or reliance on) automatic enforcement. However in Netherlands this trend appears to have since been reversed with special police squads installed in 2001.
9.3 Availability, quality and comparability of data Useful data on enforcement activity is very difficult to establish on a comparable basis. This is partly because effective enforcement is a multi-agency activity, and its effectiveness depends on the consistency of the attitudes and approach used by each agency, and the co-ordination between them. Accident data will often be held by the transport Ministry but data on police numbers, police activity, and court actions and sentences will usually be held by a separate Ministry. Although the Police may be seen as the front line in enforcement, compliance with traffic rules is achieved through the work of a variety of agencies which each play a part in the process. These include • the policy makers framing the legislation to be enforced - it is essential that the legislation is accepted at least in broad terms by the majority of road users; thus policy makers may only consider legislation when surveys show this acceptance, and also reinforce the implementation of policy with extensive public awareness campaigns explaining the reason for and justification of the legislation • the police who are then charged with enforcing this legislation – their role will only be practicable if they are seeking to modify the behaviour of a minority of offenders who are choosing to behave in ways not consistent with the majority of road users • the courts who are responsible for ensuring that those caught failing to comply with the law are given an appropriate penalty; the nature of the penalty will usually be defined in the original law, but the courts often have substantial freedom to interpret the sentencing guidelines The way in which these various elements of the process interact will have a strong influence on the outcome in terms of road user compliance. The analysis of drinking and driving in the SUN1 report gave an example of how each element might be applied more or less severely in each country. It should be recognised that if enforcement activity was working perfectly no offenders would be detected because no-one would be offending – either because people respected the rules and recognised why they were in place – or because they perceived the chances of being detected and punished was very high. It is also important to recognise that the 116
main objective of enforcing traffic regulations is to promote safety by deterring road users from committing offences which contribute to road crashes and injuries and not to maximise the number of infringement notices issued. This means that enforcement activity, to work effectively, should be highly ‘visible’ and supported by publicity and education programmes so that the driving public are aware of ongoing and planned enforcement activity. This also means that the number of offences does not necessarily give a true picture of the effectiveness of enforcement. Poor enforcement will be characterised by low numbers of detected offenders. In the face of significant levels of offending, increasing enforcement might initially result in large numbers of recorded offences which should then reduce if the enforcement policy proves effective. Two further issues that make comparison between countries difficult are • Definition of offences varies. A good example is the definition of an offence to cover driving in an unsafe manner. As there is no clear definition of when general driving behaviour becomes unsafe (unless drivers can be shown, for example, to be impaired or to be speeding) various descriptions such as careless, reckless or dangerous are used to describe inappropriate behaviour. The penalty to be applied is then based either on the outcome or on judgement of the risk involved in the incident. Different countries approach this concept differently; even within Britain there is considerable debate still as to how this offence should be defined. • Law is administered differently - for example some offences fall under Administrative/Civil Law while others come under the Criminal law but these may not be the same in each country. The potential range of sentences may also differ – for example, in the Netherlands, offending drivers can lose their license either by ‘revocation’ under Civil Law or by ‘suspension’ under Criminal Law; in Britain licence disqualifications are dealt with by either Crown court or magistrates court.
A further important factor in assessing “enforcement” is that the type and extent of enforcement activity varies considerably within each country – so that it is difficult to identify an over-riding national ‘strategy’ for each country. While there is universal support from central government for police enforcement activity, how this is actually conducted is typically devolved to the regions or counties. In Sweden this involves 21 regional counties each of which is a separate police district, while in the UK there are 52 autonomous local police forces who each decide on what strategy to adopt within a Framework set by Central Government; in the Netherlands enforcement activity is also decentralised with activity being determined at the regional and local level. It is also clear that the way drinking and driving is enforced in different districts or police areas can be very different within the same country – especially in the UK.
9.4 Country differences in safety levels This section records some of the statistics typically available against which to judge enforcement activity. These are limited by the issues raised in paragraph 9.3. 9.4.1 Force size and Organisation The numbers of serving police officers (Barclay and Taveres, 2003) in 2001 are compared with various criteria in Table 9.1 – in comparison the EU average no of officers per 100,000 population was 337. But these numbers reflect all police activities and thus are a poor indicator of either the extent to which their activities are focussed on road safety or the effectiveness of this effort.
117
Sweden 16,120 182 287
No of police officers No per 100,000 population No per 100,000 licensed driver
Table 9.1
UK 149,936 268 454
Netherlands 46,341 274 473
Force sizes in SUN countries
Even in terms of numbers of police, it is difficult to define a representative figure. Other estimates for the Netherlands for example, include 42,000 full time jobs, but not all of these working on the streets, and 200 and 260 officers per 100,000 people. 9.4.2 Levels of activity Ways of trying to ‘measure’ enforcement activity more directly can relate to the amount of surveillance or monitoring activity (such as the number of shifts, or hours, that, for example, police are sent out with radar guns to detect speeding motorists). The EU ESCAPE project reported that it was very difficult to obtain such information in order to compare different countries enforcement activity. The problem was compounded because different police regions within the same country did not all necessarily follow the same enforcement strategies so that describing typical enforcement levels in a particular country was not appropriate. Even where a direct activity can be measured in some form, such as the number of breath tests carried out to detect drinking and driving offences, this number can be a very poor indicator of the effectiveness of this activity in detecting offending drivers, although it may indicate the potential deterrence effect of the activity. The trends in Figure 9.1 from Britain illustrate this difficulty, showing a very similar number of positive tests over a period when the total number of breath tests varied markedly.
No of tests
Figure 9.1
20 02
20 01
20 00
19 99
19 98
19 97
19 96
19 95
19 94
19 93
19 92
900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
No of positives
Trends in breath testing in Britain 1992 – 2002
The number of breath test positives (or refused) rose by 4 % in Britain between 2001 and 2002. Police forces differed widely in the number of breath tests carried out in 2002 per 100,000 population from 410 in West Midlands to 3,970 in Derbyshire. The proportion of tests that were positive varied from ‘only’ 4 % in Derbyshire to 48 % in the West Midland – demonstrating the inconsistency between the number of tests and number of positives, depending on the testing policy adopted. However a larger number of total tests may have a greater deterrent effect even though not identifying more offences. 9.4.3 Numbers of offences The amount of road traffic enforcement activity in individual countries is often compared by considering the number of arrests or prosecutions and by monitoring how these have changed over time. This will not take account of the number of drivers who may be stopped and simply given a verbal warning - in an attempt to improve drivers’ behaviour by education rather than punishment. 118
Enforcement ‘activity’ is typically reported in terms of the number of ‘tickets’ (issued at the roadside or by automatic camera technology) or court prosecutions (and whether successful or not). The total number of non-court (ie fixed penalty notice) offences in the Netherlands in 2002 was far higher than in Britain or Sweden. The biggest difference is in speeding offences, but numbers of other offences are also far higher, particularly considering the difference in population. In comparison, the number of offences dealt with in the courts per head of population in Britain is 25% higher than the number in Sweden and very much higher than in the Netherlands. The distributions are shown in Table 9.2
Speeding Parking Neglect of traffic directions (eg red light) Alcohol/drugs Seat belts Careless driving Dangerous driving Vehicle state/ insurance Driving licence Other Total
Table 9.2
Sweden Fixed Courts penalty 131 21 6
Britain Fixed Courts penalty 1505 116 1165 166 20
20 45
17 1 10 210
Netherlands Fixed Courts penalty 6925 1121 331
90
1
126 33
43 11 96
54 3 46 3100
31 6 292 192 47 794
12 23
18
1141 9553
5 23
Numbers of offenders (1000s) penalised by court and non-court action in 2002 in Sweden, Britain and the Netherlands
When looked at in terms of driving population (5.6 million drivers in Sweden, 33 million in GB, 9.8million in NL), this gives the offence rates per 100,000 drivers shown in Table 9.3. Overall the rate for the Netherlands is 6 to 7 times higher than Britain and over 17 times higher than Sweden. The difference is particularly marked for speeding offences where there are some 14 times more offenders penalised in the Netherlands than in Britain, and 26 times more than in Sweden. But the rate of cases dealt with by the courts in the Netherlands is very low compared with Sweden and Great Britain. Speeding Parking Neglect of traffic directions (eg red light) Alcohol Seat belts Other Total Non-court offences Court offences
Table 9.3
Sweden 2,700 100 360 800 1,490 5,450 3,750 1,700
Britain 4,910 3,530 560 270 380 2,130 11,780 9,370 2,410
Netherlands 70,660 11,440 3,380 306 230 11,694 97,710 97,475 235
Number of offences per 100,000 licensed drivers.
9.4.3.1 Trends in Offence numbers In Sweden the number of offences dealt by the police has been rather constant during many years. As the traffic during the three last decades has been doubled and the size of fines has not been changed in line with inflation, the enforcement “factor” has decreased a lot. The only enforcement area which has increased is the number of alcohol breath tests. The alcohol (and drug) enforcement level is now around 1.5 million tests a year. The use of automatic speed cameras is only just beginning. Figure 9.2 shows the development since 1995 concerning court traffic offences in Sweden. There has been a small increasing trend 119
during recent years. There is no penalty point system existing or planned in Sweden at the moment.
Court offences 1.6 1.4
Index
1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Careless driving Alcohol and drugs Other traffic crimes
No driving licence Hit and run
Figure 9.2 Index of motoring offences dealt with by the court in Sweden In Britain, the number of speeding offences dealt with by the police increased by almost 150% between 1995 and 2002, primarily as a result of greater use of speed cameras (see chapter 10). Over the same period, parking offences dealt with by the police reduced by about 50% (with increasing use of civilian parking wardens). The number of vehicle condition offences, offences involving neglect of traffic directions or of pedestrian rights (including red light offences), and careless driving offences dealt with by the police also reduced significantly. Alcohol related offences reduced slightly between 1995 and 2000 but have since risen slightly.
300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1995
Figure 9.3
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Speeding
Parking
Traffic signals
Alcohol
Careless driving
Dangerous driving
Vehicle condition
Driving licence, insurance
Index of motoring offences dealt with by the police in Britain
In the Netherlands there has been a continual large increase in speeding offences over the last few years, mostly related to the increased use of automatic detection devices (which are discussed further in section 9.5.2). There has also been an increase in other (noncourt) offences over the last few years. The total numbers of all non-court offences in 1995 was only 3.26 million. Numbers of bookings registered as criminal traffic offences (ie dealt with in the courts) stayed relatively stable at about 80,000 from 1980 to 1990, but by 2000 120
had risen to nearly 120,000. However the actual number of sentences (shown in Table 9.2) is much lower than the number of registered cases.
NL Offence trends 5 4 3 2 1 0 1995
1996
1997
1998
Index speed
1999
2000
Index red light
2001
2002
2003
Index rest
Figure 9.4 Index of non-court offences in the Netherlands In both countries, it is not clear from the offence statistics whether these increasing trends show that the actual level of offending is increasing or whether a higher proportion of offenders is being detected. However in Britain, speed data show no change, so this suggests higher offence numbers indicate a higher proportion detected. 9.4.3.2 Definition of inappropriate driving offences One of the areas of offence most difficult to define is that associated with careless or dangerous driving. In 1991 British law was revised in an attempt to give a clearer definition of the actions that warranted these offences. However it is not clear that the revised regime has resulted in more considerate driving or in an appropriate application of the sanctions by the courts. Further research has suggested the need for a third “intermediate” offence of reckless driving to ensure that offences were not reduced to “careless” when there was doubt as to whether a “dangerous” verdict could be sustained. This debate has been further complicated by victim’s groups developing an increasing voice in this debate; they have a particular concern that causing death by one of these offences should be treated more severely that lesser injury outcomes. The Ministry has consulted on potential changes to the law to introduce the intermediate offence and to ensure separate offences (and therefore harsher penalties) for causing death by both reckless and dangerous driving. As in Britain, Dutch law does not know the concept of “aggressive driving” and therefore this offence does not exist. But the Dutch law does forbid drivers to “behave in a way that causes or can cause danger on the road”, and aggressive driving can be prosecuted under this law. The penalty for this can be up to two months prison and two years licence suspension. A separate offence is defined which prohibits drivers from behaving in such a way that through their fault an accident occurs whereby a person is killed or seriously injured. The maximum penalty for this is 9 years imprisonment and 5 years licence suspension. 9.4.3.3 Disqualification In Britain in 2002, 23% of the offenders found guilty by the courts were disqualified from driving. Of these, 45% were for alcohol related offences and 39% for vehicle or driving licence or insurance offences. 90% of the drivers found guilty of dangerous driving were 121
also disqualified; for about 60% of these the driving test must be retaken. The number of drivers disqualified under the penalty points system has stayed fairly constant at about 30,000 per year since 1992; in comparison the number of drivers having endorsements (ie adding to their penalty points) but without disqualification has increased from 1,292,000 to 2,246,000 over the same period. Virtually all of this increase has been an increase in endorsements through a fixed penalty notice. Within the endorsed group, as might be expected the increase has been the result of an increase in offences detected by cameras; over the same period endorsements for drunken driving have halved. In the Netherlands, 9,000 drivers (0.1%) had there licences suspended (for a limited period) in 2001 and 6000 drivers (0.06%) were given probational suspensions (ie if caught offending again both offences would be taken into account). The former figure compares with about 85,000 drivers (0.24%) in Britain. 9.4.4 Effectiveness of enforcement Koornstra et al estimates the percentages of road casualties that could be prevented by different types of enforcement. These were 17, 10 and 10 % for speed enforcement in Sweden, the UK and the Netherlands respectively; 2, 4 and 8% for seat belt enforcement in Sweden, the UK and the Netherlands respectively; and 3, 4 and 5 % for drink-drive enforcement in Sweden, the UK and the Netherlands respectively. These figures reflect the lower level of speed enforcement currently being conducted in Sweden and the high numbers of Dutch drivers who do not currently wear seat belts. An evaluation of (drink drive) rehabilitation courses in Sweden has shown they were effective, while in the Netherlands an evaluation by Nagele and Vissers (2000) found that rehabilitation courses increased knowledge and improved motivation to avoid drinking and driving, although no significant effect on recidivism could be identified. Studies in Britain (Davies et al, 1999; Davies, 2003) have shown that rehabilitation training for drink drive offenders has a positive effect on offender attitudes and knowledge. The reconvicted rate of rehabilitated drivers 3 years after initial conviction was less than half the rate for drink drive offenders. After 6 years, just under 2.5 times more non-course attenders than course attenders had committed a further drink drive offence. To date similar evidence does not exist in relation to driver improvement course for other types of offender. Based on a review of Dutch evaluation studies into different types of police enforcement Goldenbeld (1993) summarizes the global effectiveness and efficiency ratings for a number of traditional enforcement methods. Speed reductions can be achieved by traditional methods, but the extent to which these reductions extend past the site and time of control is very limited. This means that traditional methods of speed enforcement are effective, but not very efficient in terms of economy of use of manpower. In 2004, Mathijssen and de Craen evaluated the road safety development in Dutch police regions with and without intensified enforcement programmes. As part of this evaluation, the researchers also looked at regions with different emphasis on methods of speed control. They found that regions with a comparatively high percentage of speed control with mobile radar car scored much better in road safety development than regions with a comparatively high percentage of speed control by fixed camera poles. Further research is needed however to confirm and validate these results. Evaluation of speed camera enforcement in UK (Heydecker et al, Lyons, Mountain, Gorell ) have estimated that camera programmes reduce casualties by between 10 and 30% over the road sections in which the cameras are installed. 122
There is recent evidence from one EU country, although one with a worse road accident situation than in SUN countries, that suggests the significant effect an increased, and publicised, level of enforcement can have on a countries safety record – although the experience has yet to be properly evaluated and reported. Following a widely publicised motorway accident in France in late 2002 the President ordered an ‘immediate’ major increase in enforcement of existing traffic laws. As a result the number of people killed on French roads in January 2003 was 33% less than in 2002 and the number of casualties fell by 30%. Provisional estimates suggest that in 2003 there were 22% fewer fatalities and 18% fewer casualties than in the previous year. In part these improvements were the result of an increased expectation of police activity so the situation will need to be monitored in terms of accidents and police activity. It is reported that the French public are largely satisfied with this marked shift in enforcement activity. (ETSC Safety Monitor Report Number 53). Cauzard (2004) suggested that the main changes in behaviour had been in relation to seat belt wearing and speeding, and that “fear of sanction” was the most important factor affecting these changes in behaviour. 9.4.5 Attitudes to enforcement An ETSC Report (1999) suggests that effective police traffic enforcement could lead to a 50% reduction on road injury crashes. However, if it is to be used as an effective ‘tool’ to promote safety it is important that enforcement activity carries the support of the general public – and that those involved in the enforcement ‘chain’ (eg the police, courts and even legislators) are also committed and confident of its fairness and value. This means that it is important that the size of the punishments imposed, the amount of ‘flexibility’ used by the police (for example in identifying speeding drivers) and the amount of enforcement activity are supported by the majority of road users. It is important that enforcement, and the laws and regulations they support, are seen by road users to make the roads safer and more efficient rather than simply as a way of controlling people and raising revenue. One source of information on the attitudes of drivers in the SUN countries is the series of ‘SARTRE’ surveys (SARTRE, 2004). The SARTRE (Social Attitudes to Road traffic Risk in Europe) consortium has now conducted 3 pan-European driver surveys on safety issues such as: attitudes to safety issues, reported behaviours and accident involvement. Importantly, with regards to enforcement issues that have collected information on experience of enforcement activity for three types of offence (in the previous three years), expectation of police enforcement activity (for speeding and drinking and driving) as well as more ‘general’ attitudes to current and potential enforcement activity. Some of the results of the 2002/3 SARTRE surveys are reported below for the three SUN countries, and compared with an EU ‘benchmark’ obtained by averaging the scores of all countries taking part in the SARTRE surveys. In the following Tables, the percentages show are the total proportion of respondents supporting either of the highest two categories for the statement shown. Table 9.4 shows that between half and two-thirds of SUN drivers report that they would support more enforcement. There is less support in Sweden than in the other two countries and all three countries showed less support than the ‘EU average. This may reflect a perception by drivers in SUN countries that they are already subject to higher levels of enforcement compared to most other countries.
123
More enforcement of traffic laws Penalties for speeding should be more severe Penalties for drink driving should be more severe
Sweden 52 39
UK 74 57
Netherlands 65 48
EU average 77 61
92
94
95
88
Table 9.4 Percentage responding either ‘strongly in favour’ or ‘in favour’ of item shown Table 9.4 also shows that drivers have markedly different attitudes towards enforcement activity targeting different types of violation. Drivers in SUN countries (as well as other EU countries) are significantly more in favour of having harsher penalties for drink-driving offences than for speeding offences. In general across the EU there appears to be greater support for more severe speeding offences than there is the SUN countries, probably reflecting that penalties are already more severe in these countries than in most others. A driver’s support for enforcement will depend in part on how effective they consider it to be. Table 9.5 suggests that Dutch drivers consistently see enforcement in their country as less effectively targeted than drivers in the other two countries. Making size of punishment fit seriousness of offence Detecting and punishing most driving offences Targeting road safety
Sweden 66
UK 73
Netherlands 51
EU average 65
51
72
45
57
75
81
59
68
Table 9.5 Percentage perceiving enforcement as effective It is also likely that support for more enforcement and higher penalties will depend on how drivers perceive the current risk of being detected by enforcement activity. Table 9.6 shows the proportion of drivers in each SUN country who report that they expect to be checked for either speeding or drink-driving on a typical journey. Both UK and Dutch drivers have a significantly higher expectation of having their speed checked than do Swedish drivers and also have a markedly higher expectation than the average EU driver. Interestingly drivers in the SUN countries all have a relatively low expectation of being tested for drink-driving, around one-quarter the expectation of other EU countries, with British drivers having the lowest expectation Sweden UK Netherlands On a typical journey how likely is that you will be checked for speed? 3 38 27 for alcohol? 2.4 1.6 3 In the last three years have you been fined or punished in any other way for breaking speed limit 9 9 47 For drink-driving 0.5 0.3 1 For not wearing seatbelt 2.2 0.7 5.1
EU average 18 8.5 20 2.4 6.9
Table 9.6 Percentage perceived likelihood of being checked by the police compared with actual detection A driver’s expectation of enforcement will depend on a variety of factors, including their personal experience, and the information they obtain from other people and from the media. Table 9.6 also shows the proportion of drivers in each SUN country who reported being the subject of enforcement (and paying a fine or receiving some other kind of penalty) in the previous 3 years for offences relating to speeding, drink-driving, and not wearing a seat belt. Relatively few (1% or less) SUN drivers reported having been detected and punished for drink-driving in the previous 3 years, less than the average EU driver. Their experience of 124
being checked for not wearing a seat belt reflected national wearing rates. The Netherlands had the highest enforcement rate and the lowest wearing rates; UK wearing rates are high and current enforcement relatively low. Table 9.6 also shows that the most frequent experience of enforcement in SUN countries is for speeding offences. Nearly 10% of Swedish and UK drivers had been detected and punished for speeding in the previous 3 years while approaching half of drivers in the Netherlands had been punished for speeding in the same period. The very high rate of Dutch drivers detected speeding is partly explained by the very high number of speed cameras that had already been introduced at the time of the survey (2003). It has been suggested that this excessive and still increasing use of speed cameras is ‘alienating’ drivers in the Netherlands such that they are becoming less supportive of police speed enforcement activity and feel that the speed cameras are being used to raise revenue rather than to increase road safety. However, this is not backed up by the findings of the SARTRE survey. Table 9.7 shows the proportion of drivers in each SUN country who are in favour of safety ‘cameras’ for the purpose of detecting offenders at traffic signals (eg red-light ‘runners’) and for speeding. Sweden
UK
EU average
Netherlands
Automatic cameras for red light surveillance
57
88
85
72
Automatic cameras for surveillance of excess speed
51
78
71
66
Speed limiters fitted to cars
44
68
41
60
54
75
52
61
31
70
38
51
Speed enforcement by local public authorities
25
57
66
54
Speed enforcement by private organisations
20
15
28
18
Black-box recorder to provide evidence of speeding/dangerous driving Electronic vehicle identification for use in police enforcement
Table 9.7 Support for different speed enforcement methodologies (percentage either very or fairly in favour) Table 9.7 shows that in general there was marginally more support for ‘red light’ cameras than for speed cameras – although support for both types of cameras in all countries was over 50%.The figure also reveals that support for such technology was rather less in Sweden than in the other countries. This is in spite of the fact that nearly 5 times as many drivers in the Netherlands had been detected speeding by cameras in the previous 3 years than had Swedish drivers. This apparent low level of support by Swedish and Dutch drivers for using ‘new technologies’ for enforcement purposes is also found for other possible systems. Table 9.7 shows the level of support that drivers would have for systems that would prevent drivers from exceeding speed limits, the use of ‘black-boxes’ fitted to vehicles that recorded information that could be used for enforcement purposes or a system that identified vehicles electronically. In general drivers in the UK were significantly more supportive of the introduction of such measures than drivers in the other two countries. Although it is not clear why UK drivers should be more supportive, it would seem that they have more faith in the use of such equipment and perhaps its fairness, although this might be eroded as safety camera use increases. 125
The introduction of speed cameras means that enforcement of traffic laws can be carried out by non-police organisations – in the same way that parking offences became the responsibility of (non-police) Traffic Wardens in the UK some years ago. This trend is likely to continue so it was of interest to the SARTRE group to see whether or not such a development would have public support. Table 9.5 shows the proportion of drivers in the SUN countries who would be in favour of enforcement activities being done by bodies other than the police, such as local government authorities or private organisations. Table 9.7 shows greater support for local authority enforcement than for private organisations, but support is generally low for both options in Sweden.
9.5 Recent interventions to reduce the risk 9.5.1 Penalty points systems Britain has been operating a penalty points system for many years based on disqualification if 12 points are accumulated. The system was strengthened in 1989 when penalty points were increased for careless driving, driving without insurance, and failing to stop after an accident. From 1997, drivers who accumulate 6 or more points during the first two years after passing their test are required to have a compulsory retest before regaining their licence. Currently, the Ministry are consulting on the use of graduated penalties for different levels of excess speeding – which include the suggestion to reduce the points loss from 3 to 2 if an offence involves speeds only around 10mph above the limit; there is considerable opposition among road safety practitioners to any reduction in points. A penalty points system is currently proposed in the Netherlands but supervision of the system and the points scoring regime are still under discussion. But since 2002 a special “point” licence has been operating for novice drivers. There is no penalty points system is in operation in Sweden at present. 9.5.2 Use of automatic enforcement systems Section 9.4.3 shows how extensively automatic systems have been introduced in the Netherlands and in Britain over the last five years. Implementation in the Netherlands has been much more extensive, but fixed speed cameras have received much criticism from both the media and the public. One of the items of discussion is the lack of clear safety criteria for installing speed cameras. However, despite this there remains a fairly high level of support among the public for camera enforcement. This situation is mirrored in Britain, where the prospect of numbers of speed offences rising to 3 million in 2004 is viewed with concern. Ministers in Britain have responded by setting clear criteria based on accident levels for camera sites and ensured that they are as visible as possible to drivers. But the Transport Select Committee (House of Commons, 2004) recently concluded that “the attempt to make cameras more acceptable through tough guidelines on their use has backfired”. In both countries, cameras provide evidence in around 90% of speeding offences. In the Netherlands, the credibility of speed enforcement seems an important point of interest for future policies. It can be speculated that speed enforcement in the Netherlands is less credible and acceptable for road users than in UK for two reasons. First, in the Netherlands, in contrast to the more homogeneous approach in UK, a large variety of enforcement methods is used (fixed and mobile speed camera, mobile videocars, lasergun, speed cameras hidden in road side objects) under different visibility conditions. This may irritate road users since there seems to be no dominant clear approach. Second, the public press and the road users are well aware that revenue generated by traffic fines is used for the National Treasury. The strong emphasis on speed enforcement by speed cameras has now 126
and then led to internal criticisms about this policy from local authorities and police commisioners who have voiced their doubts about the true motives behind the camera schemes. Despite these possible flaws in the Dutch implementation process of speed cameras, it should be pointed out that still three quarters of Dutch car drivers are positive rather than negative about speed cameras (SARTRE 2002 research, BVOM survey research, 2004) and that at least positive speed and safety effects of mobile speed camera operations in the Netherlands have been demonstrated (Goldenbeld and Schagen, 2005, Accident Analysis and Prevention forthcoming). It should also be pointed out that the Dutch speed enforcement program is indeed slowly shifting emphasis to methods of speed enforcement that may be more credible to the general public such as the method of route control that detects speed offences over larger road stretches instead of on-the-spotmeasurement. . 9.5.3 Intensified national enforcement activities In 1999, the Dutch Bureau of Traffic Enforcement launched a four-year programme of intensified police traffic enforcement, starting in 8 of the 25 Dutch police regions. In 2003 all regions participated. This programme focuses on 5 spearheads – speeding on trunk roads and urban through roads, drink-driving, red light running, seat belt use, and helmet use by moped riders. This programme requires development of a tailor-made enforcement plan for each region in consultation and co-operation with local authorities and other local agencies. In each region, a project team of 25 policemen, who are employed to enforce targeted traffic behaviours only, is added to the general constabulary. In Britain, the partnerships of police, local authorities, and local agencies are increasingly taking the lead in developing broader enforcement and road safety strategies. Road safety initiatives in these partnerships are partly funded by revenue from speeding fines. In both Britain and the Netherlands, enforcement plans are required as part of local transport plans. In both countries there are also proposals under consideration to involve road authorities in activities previously done by the police. On Britain’s national road system, incident management responsibilities are being transferred to non-police traffic officers. Concerns have been expressed that this will reduce the police presence on the strategic road network. In the Netherlands, the relationship between the police and the Public Prosecutor’s Office is also changing and use of automatic enforcement has intensified between 1999 and 2003 due to direct contracts between these organisations. A recent British Parliamentary committee report (House of Commons 2004) quoted the Inspectorate of Constabulary as saying “most forces saw road policing as a peripheral task”. The committee recognised that some police forces are using roads policing as part of their wider strategy, and are taking the need to reduce road deaths and injuries seriously, but insisted that the Constabulary must ensure other forces follow this lead. In January 2005, the British Department for Transport, the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers issued a new joint strategy for policing roads which included a commitment to a higher visible police presence on the roads. A new Road Safety Bill under discussion gives police new powers to take drink drive evidence at the roadside, to target uninsured vehicles through the use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition, and to require mandatory re-testing of drivers disqualified for two years or more. It is not clear however that any increase in resources is planned.
127
9.5.4 Linking enforcement to publicity Enforcement activity is typically linked with mass media publicity or education programmes. All 3 SUN countries conduct national campaigns but evaluations are not always carried out of how successful or cost effective they were. Sweden A national billboard campaign concerning seatbelt use has recently been completed and evaluated by the Swedish Transport Research Institute (VTI). UK Public awareness campaigns are generally coordinated by the Department for Transport who use a wide variety of media (eg television, newspapers, magazines and posters). The current themed ‘Think’ campaign targets a wide range of topics including speeding, drinkdriving and seatbelt wearing (especially in the rear). The campaigns are only ‘evaluated’ by measuring penetration rates, shifts in attitudes and observed behaviours. Seatbelt wearing is also monitored on a regular basis. Netherlands The intensified police programmes described above are supported by publicity campaigns which are expected to be financed by the Bureau of Traffic Enforcement, using the extra income generated from fines. During the period 2003-2007 four nation-wide publicity campaigns will also be supported by enforcement activities – these will target use of seatbelts, use of bicycle lights, drinking and driving, and aggressive perceived behaviour. Speeding was not part of this programme. 9.5.5 Reducing motoring offences through action on non-motoring offences There have been suggestions that any worsening of driver behaviour being observed is simply a reflection of a general increase in anti-social behaviour and reduced respect for the law and social conventions. Research in the UK has linked driver attitudes, behaviour and accident involvement to ‘social deviance’ (eg West, 1997). Also in the UK, Broughton (2003) and Department for Transport (2002) have both shown a link exists between traffic safety offences and other offences. Similarly, a number of studies on young drivers in the Netherlands have linked traffic offences and other violations (Junger et al, in preparation). In the UK Home Office statistics on non-motoring antisocial behaviour show that in recent years while the total amount of vehicle related crime has decreased (primarily as a result of a substantial decrease in theft), the number of violent crime offences has increased by a factor of three since 1995. The implications of these finding for enforcement of traffic laws are serious. While they suggest that increased enforcement of other (non-traffic) violations will identify and punish drivers who are likely to commit traffic offences it does not necessarily mean that they will refrain from committing the traffic offences – in some case it might make them respect the law even less. Additionally, if worsening driver behaviour is ‘simply’ a symptom of a less law abiding society it places extra pressure on how the traffic laws are enforced if they are to make an impact of accident numbers. 9.5.6 Indications of worsening behaviour 9.5.6.1 Aggressive driving behaviour One of the concerns that has been expressed by safety practitioners in recent years although mainly as a result of personal subjective experience rather than the findings of more objective research studies – is that drivers are becoming more aggressive and competitive. The SARTRE 3 survey looked at this concern by asking drivers their 128
experience of aggression while driving, whether by them or towards them. This question had not been included in earlier SARTRE surveys. Table 9.8 shows that over two-fifths of drivers in the UK and the Netherlands had experienced aggression directed towards them by other road users; only one-fifth of Swedish drivers reported such an experience. Fewer drivers, between 1 and 20%, ‘admitted’ being aggressive towards other road users. Given that the information was collected using face-to-face interviews this is a surprisingly high proportion. Sweden
UK
Netherlands
EU average
In the last 12 months have you had experience of aggressive behaviour on the road Directed towards you by another road user? By yourself towards another road user?
19
47
40
41
17
17
12
16
Table 9.8 Aggressive behaviour 9.5.6.2 Hit and run offences Fig 9.2 shows that in Sweden in Sweden the number of hit and run offences was decreasing between 1995 and 1998, but then rose again between 1999 and 2002, to fall again in 2003. In the UK there has been a marked increase in the number of hit and run accidents. Broughton (2004) reports that hit and run accidents formed a constant fraction of the accident total until 1998, but this fraction has risen rapidly for non-fatal accidents on BuiltUp roads (although not for Non Built-Up roads or motorways). In the Netherlands there has been a 39% increase in such accidents over a 5 year period (1996-2001). In 2001 there were 85,000 hit and run cases, of which only a small proportion of offenders were identified. 9.5.6.3 Driving without licence Koornstra et al reported that in Sweden, 30% of drinking drivers detected by the police did not have a valid driving licence. Fig 9.2 shows the number of these offences has risen by about 30% since 1998. In the UK it is estimated that about 470,000 drivers on the roads do not possess a current licence and that 5% of them are uninsured. Unlicensed drivers commit 9.3% of all motoring offences. The number of all motoring licence and insurance offences dealt with by police action in England and Wales has remained fairly constant from 1991 to 2002. But in the same period the annual number of offenders sentenced for driving while disqualified grew from 12,000 to almost 24,000. Over the same period the number of drivers who were disqualified annually only increased from 149,000 to 184,000.
9.5.6.4 Changes in reported behaviour and risk taking The 3 SARTRE surveys (in 1992, 1997 and 2002) each asked questions on a number of dangerous or risky behaviours. The results do not show any consistent trends in the three countries towards poorer reported behaviour, although responses to individual questions did show worsening responses in some countries. However these surveys are more likely to identify changes in the driving populations as a whole, rather than worsening behaviour among particular groups of drivers. 129
9.5.6.5 Changes in observed behaviour In UK the percentage of driver fatalities with BAC above the legal limit was at its lowest in the early 1990s and has risen slightly again over the last ten years. This effect is also evident in the percentage of drivers with higher levels of BAC and perhaps most evident in the proportion of drivers over the BAC limit during the peak drinking period at the weekends which is back to the level seen in 1985. Another behavioural indicator might be an increase in speed among the fastest group of drivers. National surveys in Britain over the last five years show little general evidence of an increase in the proportions at higher speeds, although the percentage of motorcyclists exceeding the speed limit by more than 10mph (16kph) on motorways and dual carriageways appears to have increased markedly in 2002 and 2003.
9.5.6.6 Changes in accident related behaviour Broughton (2005) investigated in more detail the upward trends on car occupant and motorcyclist deaths in Britain between 1994 and 2002. He concludes that for both car drivers and motorcyclists the dominant failure that led to fatal accidents to their occupants or riders was loss of control. For car drivers, the incidence of loss of control, careless or reckless behaviour, and aggressive driving, as judged by accident investigators, has increased since 1999 (the first year these assessments were made). In particular the proportion of car occupants injured in accidents on bends has risen. Broughton concludes that this suggests that some of potential benefits from improving car design have been offset by a decline in driving standards by some drivers. Broughton also concludes that an increase in the number of car drivers who died in drink/drive accidents has accounted for much of the increase in driver fatalities since 1999. In contrast, the proportion of motorcyclists dying in drink drive accidents has stayed stable over the same period. Fig 9.2 shows that in Sweden the number of careless driving offences has risen by 40% since 1995 and the number of alcohol related offences, having dropped between 1995 and 1998, subsequently rose again to 20% above the 1995 level.
9.5.6.7 Changes in offence rates In Britain, the number of alcohol breath test positives (or refused) rose by 4 % since 2001. Just over half a million breath tests were carried out in 2002, 9.5 % fewer than in 2001. Between 2001 and 2002 the number of offences of driving after consuming alcohol and drugs rose by 6%. Causing death by dangerous driving or careless driving while under the influence of alcohol was fairly constant between 1996 and 2000, but rose by a third by 2003/4. Causing death by aggravated vehicle taking was similarly constant (individual years varied considerably) between 1996 and 2000, but has almost doubled by 2003/4. At the same time theft or unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle has reduced steadily since the early 1990s, possibly as a result of improved vehicle security systems. In the Netherlands, the number of drivers arrested for criminal traffic offences reported by the Public Prosecutors Office stayed constant until 2001, but the number of cases in this category increased steeply in 2002. About 75 percent of these cases concern driving under the influence. The rest concerns causing a serious injury accident, hit and run, refusing breath test at an alcohol check and driving during a driving ban. 130
9.6 Discussion of differences and/or similarities between the countries In Koornstra et al, a number of key differences were identified between individual countries. For example, with regards to drinking and driving: • •
• •
The legal drink-drive (BAC) limit in the 3 SUN countries is very different. In Sweden it is 0.2%, in the Netherlands 0.5% while it the UK it is 0.8%. This UK limit is amongst the highest in the EU. In Sweden and the Netherlands the penalties for drinking and driving are more flexible, and typically less severe, than in the UK. For low level offenders in Sweden and the Netherlands there is the possibility of a one month suspension or a fixed penalty fine respectively, while in the UK offenders almost invariably receive a 12 month driving ban – or worse. Random breath testing is allowed in Sweden and the Netherlands but not in the UK. All 3 countries had some kind of rehabilitation programme for high risk or repeat offenders, and have a requirement to undergo a medical test, before being allowed to drive, suggesting that it was recognised that it is sometimes a drinking problem rather than a drink-driving problem.
Evidence from the data in the current report suggests • The numbers of police are lower in Sweden in relation to the general population and the number of licensed drivers; but it is clear that police numbers in themselves are a very poor indicator of road traffic safety enforcement. • The number of traffic offences recorded in each country is heavily influenced by the extent of use of automatic detection equipment. These devices focus on speeding and red light offences and the offenders detected in this way are mainly dealt with by fixed penalty notices. • Seventy speeding tickets per 100 licensed drivers were recorded in the Netherlands in 2002, compared with 5 in Britain and 2.5 in Sweden. In comparison the number of all motoring offences dealt with by the courts in Britain per licensed driver was double that in Sweden and very much higher than in the Netherlands. • In addition to the huge increases in recorded speeding offences in recent years, there is evidence in both Britain and the Netherlands of rising trends in many types of offences in the past 2-3 years. This seems to be particularly true for offences involving more extreme behaviour such as drinking and driving, hit and run, causing death by dangerous driving and aggravated theft. • More drivers are disqualified from driving in Britain than in the Netherlands, and there is evidence of a significant number of unlicensed drivers. In Sweden, unlicensed drivers appear to make up an even larger proportion of total offenders. • A penalty points system is well established in Britain; the Netherlands have a novice driver system but are still considering a full system, while Sweden are not envisaging such a system in the near future?? • Attitude studies suggest that drivers are generally least accepting of enforcement in Sweden, and in many cases less accepting in Netherlands than in Britain. In both the latter countries there is general support among drivers for speed enforcement despite the rapid increase in camera use and consequent number of offences. • Police led enforcement plans and partnerships with other local agencies have been developed in both GB and NL, with local transport plans providing some stimulus for this. • But in NL there are clearly focussed and financed plans for intensified police enforcement activity supported by national effort while in GB the focus is on reducing traffic policing and relying more on detecting motoring offenders through 131
targeting general offending patterns - results in lower observed presence which may encourage more general anti-social behaviour?
9.7 Conclusions and country specific recommendations Comparison between countries in this area is very difficult, and data from a range of indicators need to be examined to provide a convincing picture. General conclusions from the information collated here are • There are some marked differences between the three countries in aspects of enforcement effort, use of enforcement methods, and in public attitudes to enforcement • Effective policing requires not only a good balance between legal requirements, police enforcement and court action, but also a positive public attitude to the laws and penalties being imposed. Public attitudes can also be influenced by the enforcement methods being used. • These factors are applied differently in the three countries in some cases; the approach to drink driving provides one example. Although all three countries are considered relatively successful in combating drink driving, this does not mean that each should not look carefully at the approach adopted in the other countries. • Evidence is beginning to emerge of worsening behaviour among road users which is affecting casualty numbers in subtle ways; the continuing high levels of fatalities being seen in all three countries might be one outcome. • Enforcement methods therefore need to be increasingly directed towards those indulging in more extreme behaviour - high risk drink drivers, excessive speeders, disqualified drivers – which requires increasing emphasis on intelligent detection methods • A substantial visible police presence is consequently necessary to maintain appropriate behaviour among the majority of road users and demonstrate the fairness of enforcement practice. • Substantial differences are apparent in the use of automated detection systems in the three countries, particularly for speeding offences. There are indications that extensive use of automation may be undermining public confidence and not modifying behaviour in the way intended. • The Netherlands and UK have different policies regarding the use and visibility of speed cameras and the revenues from speed enforcement fines. In UK, the use of speed cameras is linked to clear guidelines, speed cameras should be clearly visible to all approaching motorists, and revenues from speed cameras should not be profitable to the parties. In contrast, in the Netherlands, guidelines for use and visibility of cameras are much less stringent. Also, the expected revenue generated by traffic fines is officially part of the national income budget. These differences in implementation policies may very well have led to greater acceptance of speed cameras by the British than by the Dutch public. It remains to be seen whether these different speed enforcement policies may have led to different road safety results in both countries. Up till now, the Netherlands have not done any extensive research into the possible national effects of speed enforcement. In the UK, several studies were done to estimate safety effects of speed camera programs. Although the discussion as to the safety effects of the speed cameras is still continuing, the overall trend in results is quite positive • There is growing recognition of the need for the police to work in partnership with other road safety organisations to achieve balanced road safety policies. •
Although it is difficult from this limited study of a very complex subject to develop country specific recommendations, there are indications that: 132
•
•
•
•
For Sweden, more effort to improve public attitudes to enforcement might be useful possibly through more community partnerships? There would seem to be the opportunity to increase the use of automatic detection, but only if this could be done with general public approval For Britain, it is important that the latest policy statements promising greater visible presence are accompanied by sufficient resources to achieve this. Senior police managers need to demonstrate a genuine commitment to road safety by maintaining appropriate levels of traffic policing The experience of the other two countries suggests that Britain could improve its package of drink drive measures and particularly increase the perceived level of detection. The increasing number of speeding offences also suggests that the balance between enforcement and public awareness might be improved in Britain and the Netherlands. For the Netherlands, the very high level of speeding offences suggests that a different approach, or a shift in emphasis in the present approach, to modifying speeding behaviour might be needed. Based on British experience, it might be difficult to introduce an acceptable penalty points system, with such a high level of speeding offences among individual drivers. Furthermore, a greater focus of enforcement on repeated and/or extreme offenders may be more beneficial.
133
10 Effective Implementation of safety policies 10.1 Introduction This chapter addresses the following main question: "What are favourable and less favourable conditions for a successful implementation of traffic safety measures?" For three road safety measures, introduction of 30 km/h-zones, speed cameras and promotion of bicycle helmets, the chapter describes the process of implementation and identifies possible favourable and unfavourable conditions surrounding the implementation process. The three measures were chosen to illustrate policies at different stages of maturity and focussing on different aspects of road safety inter-vention. Policy on using infrastructure changes to encourage traffic calming has been developing over the last three decades. Introduction of speed camera enfor-cement has largely been a feature of the last decade, while use of bicycle helmets, although discussed over many years, has only become law in one Sun country. All three measures remain contentious in some respects. Improved road safety is the most important criterion of successful implementation, but there are also other criteria involved such as generating and upholding public and political support for measure, and effective distribution of resources for implementing measures. It is evident that some measure of both governmental and public support is necessary for implementing a road safety measure. Governmental support is dependent upon the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of a road safety measure and the consideration of possible alternatives for a measure. Every road safety measure involves the weighing of several societal interests and thus issues of distribution come into play. Care should be taken that the public support for the measure, though not necessarily very high at the start, does not actually decrease during implementation. A decrease in public support can set the "ideal stage" for bad press publicity, political resistance against the measure and ultimately non-co-operative behaviour of road users.
10.2 Implementation of 30 km/h-zones 10.2.1
Extent of the problem
In many European countries most of the serious traffic casualties occur inside urban areas. For example, in 2000-2002 in the Netherlands 53% of the hospitalized traffic casualties occurred inside urban areas. Most towns and cities in Europe have speed limits of 50 km/h, yet research shows that a pedestrian is eight times as likely to be killed in a collision at 50 km/h than at 30 km/h (Ashton and Mackay, 1979). The risk of being killed as a pedestrian increases dramatically if the car speed in the collision is higher than 30 km/h. For this reason there are moves to reduce speed limits to 30 km/h in residential areas and city centers. In most cases a mandatory speed limit of 30 km/h is introduced in environments which already have low speeds but it is also used at schools and some other institutions with a lot of pedestrians and bicyclists during daytime. Frequently the introduction of a new 30 kph limit for specific areas is supported by a number of traffic calming measures such as road humps, mini-round-abouts, raised junctions, and so on. The safety effects of 30 km/h zones have been researched in several studies. On average the number of injury accidents decreases by about 25% when a 50 km/h-limit is reconstructed into a 30 km/h-area (Elvik, 2001). 10.2.2 Implementation of 30 km/h-zones in Sweden 10.2.2.1 Implementation history The speed limit of 30 km/h was introduced in the late sixties. In 1976, the central authority, Traffic Safety Office, set criteria which were quite restrictive. When some counties (today 21 in Sweden) were denied the right to introduce the speed limit of 30 km/h in some residential areas, they had to appeal to the Swedish Government, which in most cases made the same 134
decision as the Traffic Safety Office. As a re-sult some counties never tried to use lower limits because of these administrative problems. Evaluations of 30 km/h were made at some schools and in some residen-tial areas and showed a decrease in speeds of car drivers. To avoid the mentioned administrative problem a recommended 30 km/h was intro-duced in the eighties. The Traffic Safety Office presented guidelines for the commu-nities (today 288 communities in Sweden) for example that some speed-reducing objects ought to be installed at the same time, for example humps. At that time humps were less popular than today so the recommendation to have humps toget-her with this signed recommendation of 30 km/h was a restriction for communities and the development was slow and in many cases the humps disappeared/were removed even if the recommended speed limit was kept. The next step was to allow the community to decide about the real speed limit of 30 km/h in 1998. After a slow start, the use of both the speed limit of 30 km/h and the use of the recommended maximum speed of 30 km/h has increased, and will further increase. 10.2.2.2 Evaluation The use of different traffic safety measures in urban areas between 1998 and 2000 has been investigated, using a representative sample of 29 cities in Sweden. Imple-mentation of a recommended speed limit of 30 km/h has increased from 1000 to 1600 kilometres and of an obligatory speed limit of 30 km/h from 1250 to 3000 kilo-metres. Some kind of 30 km/h limit thus existed on 11% of the local streets in Swe-den in 2002. In the evaluation process it is difficult to isolate the effect on speed of lower speed limits and other speed reducing measures. The latter seem to be most important for the speed reduction in residential areas. An evaluation concerning the effect on speed and safety of different combinations of measures to change speed in different residential areas has not been made. The introduction of improved pedestrian crossings in some environments and the removal of pedestrian crossings in other environments were an integral part of the 30 km/h zones policy. Tables 10.1 and 10.2 illustrate the extent of use of this measure.
135
1998
2002
Change in %
Pedestrian crossing without island
34000
28000
-18 %
Pedestrian crossing with island
18000
16400
-9 %
Raised pedestrian crossing
1100
1300
+18 %
Pedestrian crossing with signal
8500
8900
+5 %
54000
47000
-13 %
Sum
Table 10.1.. Estimated number and estimated change of different types of pedestrian crossings between 1998 and 2002.
Raised street level Raised pedestrian and bicycle passage Raised street intersection
1998
2002
Change in %
3600
6000
+67 %
800
1400
+75 %
1100
1700
+55 %
Table 10.2. Estimated number of raised levels of pedestrian or bicycle crossings 98-02 This policy pedestrian crossings was presented in the paper “Calm streets!” by the Swedish Association of Local Authorities, which is the central organisation for all communities. For this particular part of the 30 km/h zones an accident evaluation was done. An alternative to pedestrian zebra crossings are marked passages through just different street pavement. These could not be identified separately in the accident statistics. In general this means that pedestrians and cyclists avoid a change of the street level, while car drivers travel lower speeds when passing over the raised pedestrian and bicyclist crossings. The strengthening of the law to give a higher priority to pedestrians on pedestrian crossings is the background to the changes above. The changes are however both positive and negative for the pedestrians. The travel time for pedestrians has decreased in the same magnitude as it has increased for cars at the remaining crossings but has increased for pedestrians where crossings have been removed. The change of the traffic safety situation is unclear for the pedestrians and the traffic safety situation has not been improved for the car occupants. Another illustration is given in Table 10.3. The result is based on 94 of 288 commu-nities. About half of the pedestrian crossings previously having a speed limit of 50 km/h now have a speed limit of 30 km/h and all pedestrian crossings with a speed limit of 70 km/h have a lower speed limit and/or have been signalised or removed.
136
30 km/h
50 km/h
70 km/h
Total
With hump
Unguarded pedestrian crossing
187
1426
47
1660
25
Unguarded pedestrian crossing
787
657
0
1444
485
7
14
0
0
202
202
Type of crossing
Before
After
Signalised pedestrian crossing Pedestrian passage
7 117
85
Table 10.3. Unguarded pedestrian crossings which have been changed concerning speed limit, signalisation or change to a pedestrian passage during 2000-2001. 10.2.2.3 Public acceptance Nowadays there is still a measure of resistance against introduction of 30 km/h-zones in large areas, for example in city centres. One problem is that the com-position of the different political parties governing the communities differs between communities. In most cases the general public, especially the people living in the residential areas with the speed limit of 50 km/h, has a more positive attitude towards the measure than the politicians and puts demands on the communities to introduce the speed limit of 30 km/h in residential areas. 10.2.3 Implementation of 20 mp/h-zones in the United Kingdom 10.2.3.1 Implementation history Table 10.4 describes key moments and periods in the process of implementation of 20 mph-zones in the UK.
137
Period
Development
19701973
Researchers at TRL began to look at the feasibility of physical means to control drivers’ speed. They came up with a design for speed humps that was proved to be effective in reducing speeds but also safe to use on public roads.
1983
Government legislation was introduced by the Ministry of Transport in 1983 to permit the use of this hump on public roads.
19821986
A demonstration project sponsored by the Transport Ministry was carried out by TRL to show that a more strategic approach to safety could have good safety benefits. The project showed good accident reductions and based on this project ideas were formulated for an approach known as "Urban Safety Management" (USM)
1988
Relaxation of the original legislation to include road humps which were not full road width. Still the restrictive types of location at which humps could be installed and also the signing required meant that even by 1990 few large schemes had been installed.
1989
Urban Safety Management (USM) was adopted as government policy and guidelines for Local Authorities were also produced (IHT 1990).
1990
(a) In 1990, to encourage more safety engineering work, and bearing in mind that central government had just introduced targets for casualty reduction for the year 2000, specific funding was provided by central government, ring fenced for safety schemes. Initially about £30M per year was provided, eventually rising to about £70M. (b) A further substantial relaxation of the legislation covering the conditions under which road humps can be installed.
19911999
As a result of the legislative and financial changes, many hundreds of 20mph zones were installed throughout the country, with most towns now having one or more schemes. Local authorities drew on urban development budgets and on contributions from property developers, as well as the specific small safety scheme budget.
20002004
Since 2000, government initiatives have further increased the funding available for local safety schemes in England, Scotland and Wales, which now amounts to some £135 million per year. In particular the Department for Transport provided an additional £3.5million to support the implementation of twenty-eight 20mph zones over 2001-2 and 2002-3. This is addition to the many zones being funded through local transport plans. Following trials of advisory speed limits in residential areas, the Scottish Executive has approved their roll out more widely in Scotland.
Table 10.4. Implementation of 30km/h zones over time in the UK Government legislation was introduced by the Ministry of Transport in 1983 to permit the use of this hump on public roads. The original legislation was for full road width humps but this was relaxed in 1988. But the restrictive types of location at which humps could be installed and also the signing required meant that even by 1990 few large schemes had been installed. Also in the 1980s a demonstration project sponsored by the Transport Ministry was carried out by TRL. This project showed good accident reductions and the urban safety management (USM) approach attempted to optimise, from a safety point of view, the distribution of traffic, by introducing a hierarchy of roads with the object of getting traffic on to the most suitable routes and removing through traffic from the more residential streets. Speeds were then managed according to the road’s function. The project highlighted the obstacles at that time to introducing traffic calming on a large scale.
138
In 1990 and following years, funding was made available for Local Safety Schemes. Traditionally Local Authorities in the UK received the majority of their funding from central government. This funding was controlled to some extent, but only in a broad way. Safety schemes were paid for out of budgets mainly used for road improve-ment or road maintenance. In 1990, specific funding was provided by central government, ring fenced for safety schemes. Initially about £30M per year was provided, eventually rising to about £70M. This ring fenced funding was eventually stopped when central government returned to a much broader system of Local Government finance, leaving Local Authorities to make more of their own decisions on how the money should be spent. In 1990 legislation for road humps was substantially relaxed, making it much easier for local authorities to choose and install schemes. At the same time the concept of 20mp/h-zones was introduced. This meant such zones needed only to be signed at the entries to the zones rather than at individual measures or series of measures, which was costly. Although legislation on design was relaxed, guidance on design was still given by the Ministry of Transport, in the form of Traffic Advisory Leaflets. These documents were attractive in appearance and understandable to the general public as well as to traffic experts and were useful to Local Authorities when consulting the public about their proposed design of schemes. Local Authorities still had to seek authorisation from the Ministry of Transport before they could install 20mph zones. The Ministry initially dealt with this by asking the research experts at TRL to assess all schemes. Most zones were authorised, sometimes after suggested modifications to the design. Once installed, authorities had to produce information that speeds had been reduced below 20mph. 20mph-zones therefore nearly always included physical speed reducing measures to ensure effectiveness in reducing speed. “Signs only” zones had been shown to ineffective in reducing speeds and such “signs only” zones had therefore been discouraged. Once the benefits of 20mph-zones were well established, authorisation of specific schemes was no longer required. 20mph-limits were also allowed for sections of road outside schools. Advisory speed limits are now also being introduced in 20 mph-zones in Scotland without a requirement for speed reducing measures. The broader concept of urban safety management was further encouraged through a demonstration project in Gloucester in the mid 1990s. This project looked parti-cularly at the organisational and communication needs of this approach. 10.2.3.2 Evaluation A project to evaluate all 20mph-zones was carried out (Webster and Mackie, 1996). The results of the study showed good safety benefits from 20mp/h-zones with casualty reductions averaging 60% and bigger reductions of 70% for child pedestrians. Those accidents that still occurred usually involved only slight injuries. The study also showed good speed reductions, as virtually all zones had physical speed reducing measures, usually road humps. 10.2.3.3 Public acceptance An important issue in introducing innovative safety measures is whether the general public will accept them. Consultation has been an important part of the installation of 20mph-zones and a number of studies of public opinion have been carried out. Generally these showed a majority of residents in favour of 20mph-zones but often there was also a fairly vociferous minority against the zones. Those against have been some of those residents living very close to road humps who have a per-ception of nuisance due to noise and vibration. Some drivers groups were also opposed to 20mph-zones claiming vehicle damage or painful discomfort. Such effects have not been substantiated if the humps are traversed at 139
appropriate speeds (Kennedy et al, 2004). Bus companies can also be opposed to 20mph zones particularly if they include road humps, but research was carried out by the Transport Ministry to produce more “bus friendly” designs such as speed cushions or lower height humps which can often alleviate bus company concerns. Emergency service vehicles also require quick access but this can be catered for by planning 20mph-zones in the context of a planned road hierarchy where some roads will offer the opportunity of higher speeds. Advice on how to cater for buses and emergency service vehicles in traffic calmed areas such as 20mph-zones was then produced, again in the form of Traffic Advisory leaflets. Since the surge in the numbers of 20mph-zones in the 1990s, installation of new schemes appears to have slowed, and the proportion of the residential network treated in this way is still small. The slowdown in implementation is unlikely to be because most of the appropriate areas have been treated. There are still many parts of towns and villages where 20mph zones would improve safety greatly. However some zones are even under the threat of removal of road humps. This appears to be partly due to public resistance, maybe because of a public feeling in some areas that sufficient schemes have been installed. Public acceptance of traffic calming in other forms is also growing. A more recent government initiative called “Home zones” rather like the original Dutch “Woonerf” schemes has been popular with some Local Authorities. Again government funding is available as with the original 20mph zones. These “Home zones” seek to achieve environmental improvement rather than just safety and the higher quality of works may engender greater support. However, due to the high costs involved, progress in implementing such zones nation-wide will be slow. 10.2.4 Implementation of 30 km/h zones in the Netherlands 10.2.4.1 Implementation history This section studies the Dutch development , preparation and implementation of the Sustainable Safe-measure 30 km/h- zones in the period 1996-2002. In the process of implementation several steps or decisive moments can be distinguished: Period
Acitivity or decision moment
1985-1994
First implementation of 30km/h zones and first evaluation studies
1995
First regional round of high-middle level political talks:
1996
Second regional round high-middle level political talks:
1 July 1997
Formal signing of intent
15 December 1997
Formal signing of definite sustainable safety contract
March 1998
Introduction subsidy arrangements
April-May 1998
First manual on sustainable traffic safety
Table 10.5. Implementation of 30km/h zones over time in the Netherlands The main actors involved in the decision process were the Ministry of Transport, Pu-blic Works and water Management, Association of Dutch Municipalities (VNG), Interprovincial Consultation Body (IPO), Union of Water Management (UvW). To ensure good co-operation on the new national road safety policy of sustainable traffic safety, in 1995 and 1996 two rounds of political meetings were arranged between high-level actors (Ministry) and middle and low level actors (Provinces and municipalities). During these consultation rounds, low and middle level actors could articulate their preferences and wishes regarding the new sustainable traffic safety programme. It appeared that from low and middle levels of politics the-re was a strong interest in introduction of 30 km/h zones. The two political rounds 140
ensured that all parties could quickly agree on the contents of a declaration of intent for the Start-up programme of Sustainable Traffic Safety (Goldenbeld and Vis, 2001). To guide and support the implementation of Sustainable Safe measures such as 30km/hzones on the local level, a project-structure was set up for the Sustainable Safe program in which realisation teams had very direct connections with implem-entation problems in practice and provide feedback to the central government level The total costs for the execution of the infrastructural activities within the framework of phase 1 of the Start-up programme for Sustainable Safety were estimated at € 182 million (400 million guilders). The Dutch government offered to pay for halve of these costs: € 91 million, of which € 54 million would be aid for 30 and 60 km zones in provinces and municipalities and € 7 million to water management authorities. A straightforward, simple subsidy arrangement was set up which made it easy for municipalities to apply for funding. The level of administrative accountability was decidedly held low in order to stimulate local interest in the measure and to reduce costs of bureaucracy (Goldenbeld and Vis, 2001). 10.2.4.2 Evaluation In this paragraph, we will describe evaluation of safety effects of 30 km/h zones (Vis et al. 1992; Koornstra et al., 2004) and evaluations into the process of co-operation leading to effective and fair results (AVV,2001; Steenaert, 2004). Vis, Dijkstra & Slop (1992) evaluated the effects of fifteen 30 km/h areas in the Netherlands in terms of speed, accidents, and traffic volume. They found that the traffic volume decreased by 5 - 30%, with the largest decrease in areas that originally had a lot of through traffic and where engineering measures had affected traffic circulation. Furthermore, they found that after the application of horizontal (axis realignment) and vertical measures (speed humps, raised plateaus) in residential streets, 85% of the cars had a speed of 30 km/h or less. They concluded that persuasive measures, such as speed humps achieved the largest speed reductions. Vis and Kaal (1993) evaluated 150 30 km/h areas in the Netherlands and found an overall accident reduction of about 10-15% and an injury accident reduction of about 22%. The SUNFLOWER study (Koornstra et al., 2004) provides indirect estimates of the possible savings due to the introduction of 30km/h zones. In the Netherlands between 1985 and 1997, about 10-15% of the urban residential roads were converted to 30km/h-zones. The average saving of accidents in these zones is quoted as about 40%. Overall therefore this should have reduced accidents on these roads by about 4-6%, i.e. 0.3-0.5% per year. Between 1997 and 2002 (5 years), the proportion of roads treated has increased to 50%. If a lower percentage change in accidents (e.g. 33%) is assumed, because the treatments have not been so comprehensive ("sober" approach), this suggest a further 13% of accidents on these roads should have been saved. The COVER-evaluation was an authoritative expert study into how well admini-strative authorities worked together in the field of traffic and traffic safety (AVV, 2001). Part of the COVER-evaluation covered the implementation of 30 km/h-zones in the Netherlands. The evaluation concluded the following: • The 30 km/h-measures were taken up energetically by municipalities. • The enthusiasm of municipalities for this measure led to a greater number of candidates for the subsidy arrangement than expected. As a results, the avera-ge subsidy contribution for each separate municipality was lower than munici-palities wished. It was hoped/expected that Central Government would react to this wave of enthusiasm by providing extra subsidy funding. However, Central Government provided no extra subsidy, thereby missing a chance of generating even more support for the implementation of 30 km/h-zones. 141
•
• •
•
In practice, the re-construction of 30 km/h-zones did not quite match the level of ambition the municipalities had formulated in their plans. Municipalities indicated that they experienced delays. At the same time, municipalities showed a reasonable measure of satisfaction with the implementation of the 30 km/h-zones. The decentralisation approach required that provinces took up a more active role in co-ordinating road safety polices. In some provinces, provincial administration took up this role quickly, in other provinces they didn't. The subsidy arrangement for 30 km/h-zones had worked out as a true incentive, drawing a lot of attention to the new 30 km/h-zones. At the same time, the subsidy arrangement did not sufficiently do justice to the idea of decentralisation. The subsidy was directly being transferred from Central Government to road authorities (often municipalities). Thus the co-ordinating role of provinces was not supported by this subsidy arrangement. The Central Government did not actually monitor the implementation of the 30 km/hzones. Also in 2000-2001, almost four years after the signing of the Agreement, umbrella organizations representing the interests of municipalities and provinces did not have any data about actual implementation of 30 km/h- zones. Therefore, crucial information concerning both the quantity as well as the quality of 30 km/h-zones was lacking.
In 2004, an evaluation study of Dutch 30 km/h zones looked into the relationship between neighbourhood characteristics and implementation of measures and into communication about measures (Steenaert, 2004). 20 municipalities co-operated with the evaluation. The study led to the following general conclusions: • The concept of a 'sober design' was interpreted differently by municipalities. Neither the level of safety nor the structure of the neighbourhood seem decisive factors in which approach is chosen. Of course, accident data play a role in determining the locations at which measures are taken. • The target/aim of the Startprogramme to create as widespread as possible treatment of residential areas had certainly been followed up by the municipalities in the present study. • Municipalities tended to implement traditional measures (e.g. plateaus and humps). Circulation measures or changes to the neighbourhood structure were rarely been implemented. • The average costs of re-construction per hectare were € 2.500. Steenaert also studied how citizen participation in the implementation of 30 km/h zones contributed to a fair process of incorporating different interests and preferen-ces. The following lessons were learned from experiences in 20 municipalities: 1. It is better to make an inventory of wishes/problems first and then make a plan. 2. It has to be clear from the start about which traffic topics citizens can provide input and which topics belong to the sole responsibility of the municipality 3. Citizen participation requires representation from citizens who live at different places in the neighbourhood. 4. Ideally citizens speak not only for themselves but also for other persons in their street. They have to act as representatives, which for some citizens is a new role. 5. Communication about planning of a 30 km/h zone raises sharp expectations from citizens which preferably should not be frustrated. Therefore all communication about factual planning of 30 km/h zones should be handled carefully. 10.2.4.3 Public acceptance In 1999, a representative survey amongst 8519 road users in the Netherlands (7155 in possession of drivers licence) was held to measure opinions about several road safety 142
measures, including 30-km/h zones (Eversdijk, et al., 2000). Respondents could indicate their opinion about a measure on a 3-point answer scale (answers "for", "against" and "no opinion"). Evaluating several measures (implementation of 30 km/h zones, of 60 km/h zones, camera enforcement of speed, overtaking pro-hibition on 80km/h roads, moped on the roadway, right-of-way for bicyclist coming from the right) almost three out of five road users (59%) were in favour of the further implementation of 30 km/h zones, making 30 km/h zones the most popular measure amongst the total set of measures. When the survey was repeated in 2001, the percentage of road users in favour of more 30 km/h zones had decreased to 41% (Traffic Test, 2004). This decrease in support may reflect the perception that a large number of 30 km/h zones have been implemented and that further implementation is not as important anymore. On the other hand, part of the decrease may reflect some loss of enthusiasm due to experience with 30 km/h-zones. Especially speed humps in 30 km/h zones tend to raise discussion and complaints from Dutch road users. 10.2.5 Conclusions about implementation The introduction of 30 km/h-zones in areas with especially many young and old unprotected road users has gradually been accepted in the SUN-countries. There is however still some resistance. The basic information provided to road users should be the probability for a pedestrian to survive in a collision with a car. In the Netherlands introduction of 30 km/h-zones has been taken up by road authorities with a lot of energy and enthusiasm. Favourable conditions for this development were: • Preparation of a national Sustainable Safety programme by mutual consultation rounds between Central Government and Lower Government leading to mutual understanding that 30 km/h zones were preferred road safety measures • A Sustainable Safe Agreement which was based on mutual trust, shared enthusiasm and which left enough room for lower government levels to arrange Sustainable Safe measures according to own preferences • A supporting project-structure in which realisation teams had very direct connections with implementation problems in practice • A fairly straightforward, simple subsidy arrangement which reduced the amount of bureaucracy involved to a minimum level. The UK experience shows the following favourable conditions for implementation: • Government research established effective road hump design • Limited initial take up because design was costly led to revision of width of humps • Positive experience from Netherlands and Germany plus demonstration project for GB area wide calming schemes encouraged local authorities • Legislation introducing 20mph-zones, which were required to demonstrate speeds achieved were within zonal limit, provided catalyst for substantial investment • Substantially increased Government support for local safety schemes and availability of other budgets provided finance for local authority work • Research demonstrated benefits from 20 mph-zones • Initial Ministry control of authorisation relaxed once good practice well established • Further demonstration project in Gloucester focussed on management strategies for area wide safety improvement, including 20mph-zones • Although generally welcomed by public, specific concerns, particularly by emergency services have resulted in mixed press debate on road humps, although many authorities continuing to demonstrate effective implementation and sensitive design • Continuing government funding and encouragement •
The review of 20mph-zone implementation in the UK has shown a number of unfavourable conditions for further innovation in this area. These are: 143
•
• • •
Lack of a safety culture, particularly amongst the public. Local democracy tends to act in favour of the status quo. People generally are conservative rather than innovative. There is resistance to change. Private and business interests are particularly reluctant to agree changes that they perceive may affect them. Politicians and the public are sceptical of scientists and planners telling them of new and better ways. Finance may be scarce and safety may not be given as high a priority for spending as more immediate needs such as mobility, access and environmental issues. If new measures require a change in the law, getting parliamentary time to change legislation can take a long period of time.
Implementation in Sweden depends to a greater extent on the views of the persons living in the area, who want a safer environment, than on the authorities. That means that 30 km/h in living areas outside the centre of the cities has been used fairly extensively. Since 2000 schemes have also be introduced in city centres. The authorities since then have a philosophy presented in the book “Calm streets! A planning process for safer, more ecofriendly, pleasant and attractive streets in urban areas”. “Calm streets!” describes a planning process for remodelling the mixed-traffic streets in towns and cities by implementing measures in the street environment. The physical measures are depending on the speed (speed limit) the community wants for cars.
10.3 The implementation of the use of speed cameras 10.3.1 Extent of the problem In the Netherlands and Sweden, a substantial proportion of drivers violate the speed limit on different types of roads (Table 10.6). Type of road
Outside urban Areas
Inside urban areas
Speed limit
% in violation of limit Netherlands
Sweden
Britain 57%
Higher order Motorways
110-120 km/hr
~ 40%
~ 66%
Lower order Motorways
90-100 km/hr
~ 45%
~ 72%
Highways
100-113 km/hr
~ 20%
~ 62%
50%
Higher order rural roads
80-96 km/hr
~ 45%
~ 58%
9%
Lower order rural roads
60-70 km/hr
?
~ 54%
Higher order urban roads
64-70 km/hr
??
~ 63%
27%
Lower order urban roads
50 km/hr
27-73%
~ 47%
58%
30 km/h- zone roads
30 km/hr
~ 85%
~ > 50%
Table 10.6. Overview of speed limit violation for different types of roads outside and inside urban areas (Sources: SWOV/National Road Administration 2004) 10.3.2
The implementation of the use of speed cameras in Sweden
10.3.2.1 Implementation history The speed limit system has been almost the same the last 30 years. In the period 19901992 an experiment with speed cameras was implemented. The effects on speed and safety were good but the experience by the police of the time to process every case resulted in the experiment being discontinued. The distribution of the traffic on different speed limits is presented in Table 10.7 for the year 2002.
144
Speed limit
Vehicle kilometres 2002
Number of fatalities 2002
Fatalities per million vehicle km
Fatalities per fatal accident
110
11 000
42
0.0038
1.27
90
21 000
225
0.0107
1.23
70
16 000
147
0.0092
1,21
50
21 000
121
0.0058
1.02
30
1000 (uncertain)
5
0.0050
1.00
All
70 000
560
0.0080
1.14
Table 10.7. Vehicle kilometres & fatality rates at different speed limits in Sweden 2002. 10.3.2.2 Evaluation The government gave the police and the National Road Administration money for a trial of automatic speed cameras from 2002. At the end at 2003, about 500 km of the main roads were covered with camera boxes in which cameras can be placed randomly. A further 250 km is under construction and will be started during 2004. The total number of boxes will then be 335. The total road length covered is 750 km so there will be a box on average every 4.5 km. Forty four road links are involved. 9 500 vehicles were photographed by speed cameras in 2003 and the driver was identified in 6 000 cases. One restriction is that the driver is responsible for the speed offence by the law. If the owner of the car could be held legally responsible the identification process would be much easier. Some efforts are being made to implement this change in law. The accident result corresponds to existing models showing the effect of speed on safety. The preliminary effect on fatal accidents is a reduction of 50 % and on all injury accidents 25 %. The speed reduction is 5-10 km/h. The accident data is however limited. Normally the camera boxes are installed on accident prone roads with speed limits of 90 km/h. There is however an increasing use of camera boxes at local speed limits of 70 or 50 km/h at intersections etc. The regions of the Road Administration (7 regions) together with the county police (21counties) decide on the placement and the number of camera boxes. 10.3.2.3 Public acceptance Between 1999 and 2003 support for speed cameras has increased from 59 to 69% of the age group between15-84 years old. In 1992 the corresponding percentage was 44%. 10.3.3 The implementation of speed cameras in the United Kingdom 10.3.3.1 Implementation history Cameras were first type approved for use to provide evidence of speeding in the early 1990s. One early application was in West London, where a network of came-ras, both speed cameras and red light cameras, were installed on the main radial routes. Evaluation of this initiative demonstrated that speeds had been reduced and casualties saved over the network treated. Implementation elsewhere remained fairly low key due to the cost of setting up camera sites and processing the data. In 2000 a pilot scheme was developed in eight police force areas allowing partner-ships of police and local authority agencies to be established which were able to recover the costs of operating speed and red light cameras (known collectively as safety cameras) from the fines resulting from enforcement. Any extra revenue from the fines went to central government as with other fines. 145
Following a positive evaluation of the results of the first year of the pilot scheme the procedure was made available nationally in August 2001. In order to take part in the scheme police areas must work with the local authorities, the police and courts. The Safety Camera Funding Scheme (sometimes referred to as 'netting off') now covers the majority of police areas in the country (24 schemes in operation over the first 3 years) and it is hoped that eventually the scheme will cover the whole country. There are clear guidelines covering where and how safety cameras should be placed, and measures to be taken to ensure drivers are aware of them (published on www.dft.gov.uk under the Road safety area). It is a responsibility of each safety camera partnership to ensure that the location details of fixed cameras are available to both the public and local media. In De-cember 2001 additional guidelines were introduced insisting that all safety cameras within the Safety Camera Funding Scheme should be bright yellow to ensure maximum visibility. Fixed cameras must be located only at sites where there have been at least four accidents per km involving killed or seriously injured casualties in the last three years. Additional sites may be considered after all possible sites meeting this criterion have been treated. 10.3.3.2 Evaluation The report of two years of operation of the scheme (Gains et al., 2002) showed speeds to be reduced on average across all sites by 7mph. At sites which had previously not had cameras, there was a reduction of 32% in the proportion of vehicles breaking the speed limit – this varied from an average reduction of 71% for fixed camera sites to an average of 21% for mobile camera sites. The proportion of vehicles travelling at more than 15mph above the speed limit fell by even more (80% for fixed camera sites, and 28% for mobile camera sites). After allowing for long term trends, there was a 33% reduction in personal injury accidents at sites where cameras had been introduced, and a 40% reduction in accidents resulting in fatal or serious injuries. A later evaluation by Gains et al. (2004) showed similar results. A very large proportion of local authorities now operate a camera partnership with the local police forces. The number of speeding offences detected by cameras has increased more than fivefold since 1996, and is still increasing rapidly – rising by 40% between 2001 and 2002 from 1.0 million to 1.4 million. In 2002, cameras were used to provide evidence in 85% of cases where police took action for speeding. 10.3.3.3 Public acceptance Local and national attitude surveys conducted during the partnership programme showed a generally positive attitude by the public to the use of safety cameras for targeted enforcement (Table 10.8).
146
Statement about speed cameras
Corbett 1998
Partnership report 2003
Recent studies
Cameras intended to encourage drivers to stick to limits, not to punish them
83
80
76
Fewer collisions are likely to happen on road where cameras are installed
67
72
68
Cameras are an easy way of making money out of motorists
45
45
52
Cameras mean that dangerous drivers are more likely to get caught
78
68
61
Use of safety cameras should be supported as a means of reducing casualties
-
-
79
The primary aim of cameras is to save lives
-
-
68
There are too many safety cameras in our local area
-
-
22
Table 10.8. Percentage of drivers answering yes to statements. The Department for Transport has responded by providing information on their website clarifying the rules governing the implementation of cameras and their use. The Parliamentary Advisory Committee on Transport Safety has also published a leaflet attempting to dispel the negative myths about the use and effectiveness of cameras. The Department for Transport is now undertaking a review governing the use of mobile speed cameras. The Association of Chief Police Officers has asked for the review because they think the current guidelines are too restrictive; one relaxation being considered is to extend the maximum distance covered by the mobile site from 5km to 20km. 10.3.4 Implementation of the use of speed cameras in the Netherlands 10.3.4.1 Implementation history Two developments have been important for the use of speed cameras in the Nether-lands: (1) A new administrative law per September 1990 which covers minor traffic offences and which stipulates that in cases involving registration of speed offences by radar, the party in whose name the vehicle is registered is liable and (2) the start of a central bureau of traffic enforcement in 1998 which co-ordinates enforcement projects and supervises the monitoring of speed behaviour. In 2004, the Bureau of Traffic Enforcement has about 800 fixed speed camera poles under supervision of which about 20% actually contains a camera. The cameras rotate amongst the poles. Also, provincial and municipal authorities manage a number of fixed camera poles. According to a website dedicated to providing information about speed checks, the total number of fixed speed camera poles in the Netherlands would be more than 1600. Possibly, this estimate is an exag-geration since it is not clear whether poles which have been taken out of circulation are still included in this number. 10.3.4.2 Evaluation In the Netherlands there is no knowledge about the general safety effects of fixed speed cameras on different road types due to a lack of monitoring of past and present camera sites and a lack of monitoring of accidents near specific camera sites. In the United Kingdom such systematic monitoring is part of the conditions for setting up a local program and is funded by the Government. Critics of the camera policy in the Netherlands claim that money considerations play a role in the Dutch camera program pointing out that expected revenue from traffic fines is formal part of the National Budget. 147
Despite the lack of general evidence, there is specific evidence for positive safety effects of mobile speed cameras on rural roads. A study of Goldenbeld et al. (2003) estimated the effects of a five-year province-wide speed enforcement campaign on 28 above average dangerous road segments of 80 km/h rural roads and 100 km/h trunk roads outside urban areas in the Dutch province Friesland. The method of speed control under investigation concerned weekly mostly one to two hour speed checks with hidden radar cars on 2-5 km wide road segments which were indicated by signs to be part of the selected roads for camera enforcement and which were publicized in local newspapers. Based on the available data, the best possible estimate of the 5-year traffic safety effect of the enforcement programme has been a 21% reduction of serious casualties and a 21% reduction of injury accidents as a result of crashes with motorised traffic. 10.3.4.3 Public acceptance The SARTRE-3 survey indicates that there is majority support amongst Dutch drivers for the use of camera's for enforcement of speeding. More than 4 out of every 5 car drivers (85%) very much or fairly agrees with the use of red light cameras. The support for the use of automated speed cameras is less, but still large (71%). 10.3.5 Conclusions In the Netherlands favourable conditions for widespread camera enforcement were: • A central bureau co-ordinating all camera enforcement projects and supervising monitoring of speed behaviour • Legislation which makes the owner of the car responsible for speed violations • • • • • • • • • •
Unfavourable or complicating conditions concerning the use of speed camera's in the Netherlands are: A huge amount of income from speed cameras is anticipated in the national budget. There is no precise knowledge about the safety effects of fixed speed camera's due to lack of central monitoring of accidents at specific camera sites In the UK favourable conditions for implementation of camera's were: Initial enthusiasm among police and government tempered by cost of implementation Resolved by hypothecation – controlled experiment requiring partnerships Evaluation of both effectiveness of management and financial control and of effectiveness of cameras in reducing accidents Extension of partnership programme to general implementation Further debate among researchers to establish conclusive evidence Part of general debate about emphasis on speed reduction
Unfavourable or complicating conditions in the UK were: • Financial element of process led to claims of revenue raising - taken up by media • Led to high profile negative publicity despite general surveys in favour • Possible over-emphasis on role of cameras without parallel implementation of other measures In Sweden complicating conditions for effective camera enforcement were: • The speed camera projects are distributed over different road administration regions and different police districts. • There is not a central unit which can harmonize the rules concerning speed enforcement • There is not yet a law that makes the car owner legally responsible for the speed offence. 148
•
An administrative problem is that traffic enforcement by the police is a measure of both for the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Transport.
Favourable conditions for future developments in Sweden are: • The government of today strongly supports the use of speed cameras. • The use of a central unit using a digital system with 700 cameras directly connected to the unit is planned.
10.4 The promotion of the use of bicycle helmets 10.4.1 The extent of the problem Bicycle helmets reduce the risk of head injury in a crash. This is shown by biome-chanical and epidemiological evidence. In a meta-analysis on 16 studies, the pro-tective effect of the bicycle helmet was estimated to be at least 45% for head injury, 33% for brain injury, 27% for facial injury and 29% for fatal injury (Attewell et al., 2001). In the Netherlands every year, about 22,000 Hospital Emergency Treatments are carried out among 0-14 year olds as a result of a bicycle crash. In addition to 22,000 out-patients, more than 1,300 children of 0-14 years old are admitted to hospital as in-patients as a result of a bicycle crash (Table 10.9). An examination of the Dutch injury data shows that the 4-8 year olds are a target group that can benefit from a bicycle helmet; they often have a head injury as a result of a bicycle crash. Swedish data show that the highest number of injuries are among age group 7-14 years. There are also a large number of head or brain injuries among the age group 15-19 years old. Data from hospital inpatients in Great Britain also show high levels of head injury resulting from bicycle accidents. One study in Scotland using data from 1991-95 showed 54% of head injuries among cyclist casualties, while another in England using 1993-95 data showed 49%.
Age group
All injuries
Head/brain injury
Abs.
%
Abs.
%
0-3 years
89
7
48
9
4-8 years
468
35
190
38
9-14 years
758
58
265
53
Total 0-14
1.315
100
503
100
Swedish data
0-6 years
1021
20
464
20
hospitalised patients
7-14 years
3188
61
1320
57
15-19 years
1018
19
525
23
Total 0-19
5227
100
2309
100
Dutch data in-patients bicycle accident 1998-2000
bicycle accident 1998-2001
Table 10.9. Hospitalised patients in the Netherlands and Sweden after a bicycle crash by age and injury. Sources: National Patient Register 1998-2000, Prismant.
149
10.4.2 The use of bicycle helmets in Sweden 10.4.2.1 Implementation history Since 1994 the introduction of a bicycle helmet law has been suggested but when and to what extent is still a question. The discussion of a law started at the eighties. It will now be a law for all children below 15 year of age in January 2005 to wear a helmet when cycling. Voluntary use is quite high up to the age of 13 years, as a result of school classes being stable for the first six years (use is highest for children aged 10). The school and the parents can then cooperate in order to have the children wearing helmets when cycling. Thus a mandatory helmet wearing law for this age group ought to be possible. But bicycling is promoted by the health and eco-driving sectors and they argue that a law will restrict people using their bike. This appears a little inconsistent as the medical sector, which have to take care of all head injuries of bicyclists is also part of the health sector. 10.4.2.2 Evaluation Measurements of the use of bicycle helmet on busy bicycle tracks in for example Gothenburg shows that almost one third of the bicyclist is using a bicycle helmet VTI make representative national measurements every year (Figure 10.1) Estimated national use of bicycle helmet in Sweden 1988-2002 Percentage (%)
25 20 15 10 5 0
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Year
Figure 10.5. Estimated bicycle helmet use in Sweden 1988-2002 based on a national counting system. Source: VTI notat 37-2003. The voluntary use on a national level has been almost the same since 1998 between 15 and 20%. 10.4.2.3 Public acceptance Today all children have a helmet when beginning to cycle. This habit is strong up to 12 year of age and then gradually decreases.77 % of the age group 7-12 years old almost always use a bicycle helmet when cycling. Acceptance of helmet use is fairly good among parents regarding their children but not always concerning themselves. The helmet law in 2005 can to some extent strengthen that opinion. In the age group15-84, and outside the coming law, about 10 % are using a bicycle helmet when cycling but 50 % are in the favour of a law. 10.4.3 The use of bicycle helmets in the United Kingdom 10.4.3.1 Implementation history In the UK, no legislation has been implemented. Following hospital based accident studies, the value of cycle helmets in reducing head injury, particularly to children, has been recognised by the Government, but also the resistance to wearing has been recognised. Action has therefore focussed on publicity campaigns, some campaigns giving incentives for helmet purchase, and development of school policies to require pupils riding to schools to wear helmets. 150
10.4.3.2 Evaluation Table 10.10 shows the bicycle helmet wearing rates on main roads and minor roads based on road side surveys initiated by the DfT (Gregory, 2003). From 1994 to 2002 there has been a gradual increase in overall wearing rate on main roads. The rate for adults increased throughout the period. The rate for girls fell in the mid 1990s but has risen again, but the rate for boys has decreased throughout the period. Wearing rates on the minor roads are substantially lower than on major roads. Although there has also been an increase in overall rate between the last two surveys on minor roads as well as major roads, the rate for children appears to have dropped on minor roads. As well as the differences between major and minor roads, wearing rates are affected by age, sex, ethnicity, type of bicycle being ridden, and time of day.
Major roads
1994
1996
1999
2002
Adult
15.5
17.0
22.2
25.7
Child
17.6
14.4
15.0
15.3
16
17.6
21.8
25.1
Adult
-
-
7.4
10.4
Child
-
-
9.7
6.5
All
-
-
8.2
9.5
All Minor roads
Table 10.10 Bicycle helmet wearing rates on main roads and minor roads 1994-2002 10.4.3.3 Public acceptance Although there has been a gradual increase in wearing rates among adult cyclist, there was for many years an unenthusiastic response from cyclist groups, who con-sidered that campaigns to increase helmet wearing might discourage campaigns to make car drivers more considerate to cyclists. Education campaigns have been de-monstrated to increase the use of helmets (Towner 2002); they are most effective for young children and for girls. Awareness of the value of helmet wearing has increased among parents and this has been helped by some schools requiring helmets to be worn if children ride to school. Recently a law has been proposed by a member of parliament (but not supported by the government) to compel cyclists under 16 to wear safety helmets but this received a substantial amount of negative comment in the media, during the Parliamentary debate. Cycling groups and the British Medical Council opposed the proposal on the grounds that it would discourage children from cycling which is a healthy activity. 10.4.4 The use of bicycle helmets in the Netherlands 10.4.4.1 Implementation history In the Netherlands, there is no law which obliges cyclists to wear a helmet and there have been no serious attempts to introduce or even consider such a law. Although an obligatory law has not been seriously considered there have been occasional discussions or meetings in the nineties about bicycle helmets and their role in road safety policy (Goldenbeld and Wittink, 1993; Vriend et al., 2003). In these discus-sions the positions of both and government and private organizations are as follows: • Any attempt at stimulating the use of the bicycle helmet should not have the negative side effect of incorrectly linking cycling and danger. • Any attempt at stimulating the use of the bicycle helmet should not have the negative side effect of lessening the use of the bicycle.
151
•
Stimulating the use of the bicycle helmet is at odds with the present government policies aimed at preventing crashes (primary prevention rather than secondary prevention) and at stimulating the use of the bicycle as a general health measure.
10.4.4.2 Evaluation In 1992, a study was carried out of the determinants of wearing bicycle helmets (Seijts et al. 1995). 279 children of three primary schools (average age 10) voluntarily wore a bicycle helmet for 6 weeks. After a number of weeks experience of wearing a bicycle helmet the initial eagerness to wear a helmet had almost completely disappeared. The reduction in enthusiasm was attributed by the researchers to two factors: discomfort of wearing and negative reactions from the children's surroundings. In 1995, the project called "Promotion of voluntary use of bicycle helmets in the Bollenstreek" took place (Steenbakkers et al., 1996). The goal of this pilot project was to investigate how feasible it was to promote voluntary use by children, and whether a local strategy via schools would be effective. The approach of the project consisted of the following components: (a) Involving schools, helmet importers, and retailers in the project; (b) Information to parents about bicycle helmets; (c) Dis-count for buying the helmet; (d) Organizing playful and educative activities for children concerning the bicycle helmet The attitude of most of the parents towards promoting helmet use by young children was already mainly positive before the project began. However, parents let their de-cision to buy a bicycle helmet largely depend on what the child wanted. Practically all children thought it was fun and exciting to wear a bicycle helmet for a week, but the negative reactions from their surroundings (being looked at and laughed at) we-re (again) the reason that more than 60% of the children said they would certainly not wear a helmet in the future. A year after the project, it appeared that nearly half of the young children (5-9 years old) at one of the two schools had a bicycle helmet. Mouth-to-mouth advertising by parents, who met each other in the school play-ground, led to helmets still being bought after the project. 10.4.4.3 Public acceptance in the Netherlands cycling is generally considered a safe activity (Goldenbeld and Wittink, 1993). What contributes to the general attitude of the Dutch to cycling and the bicycle helmet is that the cyclist already has so many safety-promoting facilities: bicycle paths, bicycle lanes, bicycle crossings (as for pedestrians), and bicycle traffic lights. They have undoubtedly improved cycling safety, but it has strengthened the cyclist's opinion that cycling is not a dangerous activity. This situation does not present the cyclist with an incentive to wear a bicycle helmet. The experience of the bicycle helmet suppliers (importers and retailers) was that the demand for children's bicycle helmets had grown considerably since the middle 1990s (Goldenbeld et al., 2003). Specific causes were mentioned: • There was an increased parents' awareness that the traffic volume was getting ever greater and that a bicycle helmet can serve as a preventative protection device. • Retailers were increasingly offering a combination of children's bicycle and bicycle helmet, • The campaigns of the Dutch Traffic Safety Association (3VO) in schools or in the media was increasing the short-term demand for bicycle helmets. • In addition, the (bicycle) helmet can be seen more in traffic as a result of a growing group of skaters and mountain bikers wearing a helmet. 10.4.5 Conclusions To a certain extent both the Netherlands and UK show a similar case as to bicycle helmets 152
• • • • •
Research or data at national level showing potential benefits of helmet wearing amongst certain user groups Local initiatives during 1990s to encourage greater wearing among children, but did not achieve substantial increase in use Resistance from individual children due to inconvenience, lack of comfort, and fear of appearing “soft” to peers. Resistance among general cyclist pressure groups who prefer to campaign for cycle facilities and lower vehicle speeds and do not believe cyclists should have to protect themselves Wearing rates remain relatively low and government do not believe legislation appropriate unless voluntary take up is higher, as compliance would be low and difficult and costly to enforce
However, the UK government certainly plays a more active role in regard to bicycle helmets than the Dutch government: • The UK Government continues to monitor wearing rates closely; evidence that rates are rising gradually but mainly among adults • The UK Government is likely to continue general campaigns to encourage higher wearing rates and continue to monitor progress closely A long cycling tradition and well-developed cyclist facilities do not, in the long run, have to obstruct a more wide-spread use of the bicycle helmet. Like the Nether-lands, Sweden also has a long cycling tradition and well-developed cyclist facilities, but the (voluntary) helmet use among Swedish children up to 10 years old increased from 20% in 1988 to 42% in 1994.
10.5 General discussion In this chapter we have described two cases (introduction of 30 km/ zones and speed cameras) of implementation of a measure in all three countries, and described one case, bicycle helmets, where implementation has not occurred in two countries. Primarily based on the two cases of introduction of 30 km/h zones and introduction of speed cameras we would like to conclude this chapter with some general observations about good implementation. The first criterion of success of road safety measure is road safety itself. However, it can take several years before the safety effects of a measure can be proven. In the meantime both public and political support for a measure may wane. To avoid such a decrease in public (and political) support two aspects of the implementation process, communication and timing, play a crucial role. In terms of timing it is often wise to implement first those elements of a measure or a program which are positively evaluated by the public and after that elements which tend be viewed with scepticism. Frequent clear communication about the various aspects of the measure may con-tribute to a better co-operation with the measure and realistic expectations concerning its performance. There can be several stimulants to generate or uphold governmental support for a new road safety measure. One of the strongest is undoubtedly scientific research showing that a measure is quite effective in reducing risk on the roads. In UK, Netherlands and Sweden special demonstration projects played an important role in generating more enthusiasm for the particular measure of 30 km/h-zones. On the other hand, demonstration projects can also show difficulties involved with certain measures. For example, bicycle promotion projects at primary schools in the Netherlands showed practical obstacles and pressures in the social environment against helmet wearing. The general public may be far less enthusiastic about new measures than govern-ment officials. It often appears that it is only when national government takes the initiative by 153
carrying out further research, doing demonstration projects and provid-ing finance for innovative schemes that progress in the area of public acceptance can be made. For this to happen there often needs to be an individual “champion” of the cause at a high level in both local and national government for progress to be made. For example, until all these elements were in place the implementation of traffic calming and 20mp/h-zones made little progress in the UK. Lessons from all three SUN countries show that citizen participation (or consultation) in the preparation of measures is an important instrument to involve the public in road safety work and to improve acceptance of a measure. Public consultation is not to be taken lightly and should be professionally handled. In consulting the public the authorities should be clear as to what the ground rules are and should be especially careful to keep promises. Issues of distribution of resources and competences play a role when a road safety measures is being prepared. Co-operation between different authorities means that material and staff resources have to be shared amongst authorities with different competences and priorities. The Dutch experience has shown that simple straightforward subsidy arrangements (without "heavy" administrative accountability) can generate large enthusiasm of local authorities to start work quickly on new safety measures. However, early subsidy arrangements create expectations for continued funding. In all three SUN countries often new managerial, administrative or practical problems crop up during the first phase of implementation which can subdue early enthusiasm. In all three SUN countries co-operation between authorities involved various fluctua-tions between centralised and de-centralised decision-making about the implemen-tation of new safety measures. A strong emphasis on de-centralised implementation of road safety measures seems logical given the fact that de-centralised authorities are in the best position to communicate with local groups and citizens and to assess the requirements of the new measure at the local level. Often, the first decisions about when and how to implement a measure are taken by central government. Also, it is often the centralised authority which at crucial moments in the implementation process has to act as rule-setter, resource divider, and general arbitrator in disputes about organization and practical matters involving the implementation of a measure. The central government should take care that funding schemes are clear and straightforward, and are consistent with the administrative division of competences in the area of road safety. Experience has shown that consultation of lower authorities right from the very start of the long process of implementation is a good idea. Once the practical implementation of a measure has started, the de-centralised authorities learn the various practical and organizational problems involved with the measure and due to these experiences start to come up with their own sets of rules, priorities, demands etc. which may not be quite consistent with national policy. The initial guidelines for implementation of a measure, provided by central government, often do not take account of the full range of specific situations occurring at the local level. In Sweden, UK and the Netherlands this has led to local diversity in the implementation of a measure and criticisms about the central guidelines. As a law of nature, sooner or later, national government will react to this with new or changed rules and new funding or changes in funding schemes. Good project management is needed to realise continued, well-motivated efforts of all authorities in this process.
154
11 Conclusions The aim of this report has been to build on the report from the first study, looking in more detail at some of the risk differences identified and also focussing more on vulnerable road users and on safety management processes. It also provides an update of the recent fatality trends in the three countries and their progress towards casualty reduction targets. One aim of the extended study is to lead into a wider process of benchmarking safety performance across a range of countries at different levels of safety development. Some conclusions will therefore also be suggested on indicators that need to be included in such comparisons, based on the differences found in comparing the three SUN countries. One factor fundamental to the casualty toll observed in different countries is the split in travel between different modes, as individual modes have very different risk levels. A more complicated, but an equally important factor, is the interaction between the different modes, in relation to network configuration and traffic density. These interactions and their effects are more difficult to quantify than the differences in risk between the individual modes. The issues involved are discussed in more detail in Appendix A. The overall safety performance, safety management systems, and safety cultures in the three SUN countries are fairly similar, and some of the individual risk differences identified in the first study (eg high risks for pedestrians and motorcyclists in Great Britain, for mopedists in the Netherlands, and to a lesser extent for car drivers in Sweden) are therefore surprising. Appendix A suggests that a substantial part of these differences may result from the size of the different road user groups in each country and their interactions with other traffic and with network configuration. Thus, for example, a country such as Sweden, with low traffic densities and a heavy focus on rural car travel, should be expected to have a higher car occupant fatality rate per vehicle km than Britain which has a much higher traffic density, despite the same general safety culture and efficiency of safety management. Similarly, Great Britain, with a higher density of pedestrian movements interacting with a higher density of motorised traffic can be expected to have a substantially higher pedestrian accident rate unless it has implemented special measures to counter this situation. Quantifying these effects is not easy. Estimates in Appendix A, based on averaged activity levels for different modes, suggest that they might explain up to half the difference in car occupant fatality rate between Sweden and Britain and most of the difference in pedestrian fatality rates. The comparison between Britain and the Netherlands is less clear, partly because of uncertainty about relative traffic flows. With the flows assumed, the difference in pedestrian fatality largely disappears but the Dutch car occupant fatality rate appears to be higher than the British rate, once the benefits of the high usage of motorways in the Netherlands has been discounted. However these analyses relate to 2003 fatality rates and the Dutch rates for 2004 appear substantially lower. But much more detailed data and analysis are required to properly explore these effects. Countries can take action to mitigate such innate problems. In the Netherlands, a high level of pedal cycle activity is accommodated at relatively low risk. This appears to have been achieved partly by providing extensive facilities to separate cyclists from motorised traffic and partly by managing the motorised traffic on these roads so that they limit the conflicts that might lead to serious cyclist injuries. The same situation has not been achieved in the Netherlands for mopedists or in Britain for pedestrians. In a parallel context, Sweden, with long sparsely trafficked rural routes, has been unable to discourage speeding among car drivers to the extent achieved in the other two countries. 155
The same issues are highlighted, in the form of different indicators, in the pedestrian chapter, where distribution of population among towns of differing sizes is suggested as a factor in national pedestrian accident rates, and in the motorcycle chapter where size of motorcycle fleet as a proportion of all traffic appears to influence national motorcyclist accident rates. But these network and traffic differences only explain part of differences observed between the three countries in the risks for individual modes. Other more specific differences are discussed in the sections below. Between 2000 and 2003 progress in fatality reduction had stalled in Sweden and Britain. In Sweden, where casualty reduction targets are defined in terms of fatalities, this is likely to seriously compromise the achievement of these targets unless new initiatives can be found. Political will and funding does not seem to be at a level where it will encourage these to a sufficient extent. In Britain, where the target is in terms of fatalities and seriously injured casualties, the continued downward trend in the latter suggests this target is more likely to be met. In the Netherlands there has been a continuing small downward trend in fatalities and this appears to have accelerated significantly in 2004, although the reason for this is not yet understood. In Sweden and Britain results for 2004 also show a reduction in fatalities (8% for Britain and 9% for Sweden). Despite these more promising results, concern still exists about the lack of total reduction in fatalities since 2000, and these two countries are currently not contributing substantially to the European fatality reduction target. The investigations that have so far been made in Britain into the difference between fatality trends and serious injury trends between 1997 and 2003 do not suggest that change in reporting practice (ie lower reporting of serious injuries) is a substantive factor in the difference. Rather there are many small factors which together are leading to higher likelihood of a fatal outcome when accidents occur, including changes in driver behaviour and in the mix of the vehicle fleet. These may suggest that at the level of safety already achieved by the three SUN countries and others, a further change in safety culture is required both in management systems and in individual behaviour, before further larger reductions in fatalities can be achieved. Lack of reduction in the annual number of fatalities in Great Britain has also been affected by significant growth in motorcycling, which carries a relatively high risk of fatal accident involvement.
11.1 For pedestrian and cyclist safety There appears to be less walking per person in the Netherlands than in Sweden and Great Britain; this is particularly so among older children and adults possibly because of the more extensive use of bicycles. Fatality risk per distance walked in Great Britain is about twice that in Sweden and 30% higher than that in the Netherlands. Estimates in Appendix A suggest that the increased levels of traffic on roads crossed by pedestrians in Britain might explain most of higher risk in this country compared with Sweden and the Netherlands. Other factors likely to increase the national average risk in Britain are the greater proportion of the population living in conurbations, and the larger number of roads crossed on a typical trip by British pedestrians. These network and traffic related explanations are supported by the similar inflated level of risk across all age ranges. In most other ways, pedestrian activity in Britain appears relatively similar to that in the other two countries, although there appears to be a slightly higher proportion of pedestrian fatalities in Britain with high levels of alcohol in their blood. There appears to be no evidence of less attention being given to pedestrian safety education and pedestrian training in Britain. 156
The same factors are likely to influence cyclist fatality risk in Britain, which is double that in the other two countries. It is also clear that in Sweden and the Netherlands the road environment has been planned with more consideration of bicycle use for many years. Although Sweden has recently introduced a bicycle helmet wearing law for children, it has not had a major effect on the numbers of cyclist fatalities; deaths among elderly cyclists contribute to most of all age groups to the national fatality total.
11.2 For powered two wheeler safety In the Netherlands, the moped fatality share and mortality rate are much higher than in Sweden and the UK. In all countries fatalities among the 15-19 age group contribute a disproportionate amount of all moped fatalities. 15-17 year olds contribute a large share of the moped kilometrage in both Sweden and the Netherlands. Dutch fatality rates per moped km are 1.6 times higher than the Swedish and 2 times higher than the British. In the 15-17 age band, Dutch fatality rates are 4 times higher than Swedish rates. In Sweden, access is allowed to mopeds at age 15, in the Netherlands and Britain the access age is 16. In Sweden and the Netherlands, no moped licence exists and only minimal training applies. In Britain requires basic training and the use of registration plates; but numbers of mopedists are relatively small. The low general traffic rates in Sweden, compared with Britain and the Netherlands, and the low level of moped use during the winter may partly explain why this relatively easy earlier access to mopeds does not produce the higher risk seen in the Netherlands. The general improvement in safety trends in the Netherlands over the last decade has not been mirrored by similar improvements in moped risk; the combination of vehicle and user characteristics and the lack of a dedicated infrastructure, compared with that provided for cyclists, has hindered progress for this user group. Britain has fewer motorcycles per head of population, or motorcycles as a proportion of traffic flow per year but has the highest number of kilometres travelled per machine. Britain has a fatality rate per motorcycle km which is 50% higher than that in the Netherlands and double that in Sweden. The high fatality rate among younger riders may be a factor in these differences, as this group potentially comprise a lower proportion of riders in the Netherlands due to high moped use. But the motorcyclist fatality rate for 25-49 year olds in Britain and the Netherlands is also substantially higher than that in Sweden. These age groups are more likely to be using larger bikes. The involvement of older motorcyclists on larger bikes appears to be highest in Britain, although there is evidence that this group is also rising in Sweden and the Netherlands. The reason why this group should have such a low fatality rate in Sweden is not clear but it may be associated with the relatively sparser road network and lower traffic density. There is some indication that the size of the motorcyclist population as a proportion of total traffic flow might account for an increase of one third in GB rates compared with the Netherlands and one half compared with Sweden.
11.3 For young driver safety Young drivers in the Netherlands have the worst safety record of the three countries. A possible explanation for the high accident risk for novice driver compared to Sweden and the UK is that young drivers have spent fewer hours behind the wheel before they do the driving test. The reason for this is that so far accompanied driving before the driving test has been legally forbidden in the Netherlands. Risk among male drivers is higher than for female drivers and generally becoming worse, probably as a result of changes in lifestyle. Young male drivers are more likely to drive late at night and although the use of alcohol hasn't increased in the past decade, the use of illicit party drugs has. From reported 157
behaviour, speeding appears to be more of a problem among younger drivers in the UK and the Netherlands than in Sweden. Young drivers were generally over-represented in all accident types (single, alcohol, passenger present, and weekend nights) compared with older drivers. All three countries share the same pattern with respect to the high involvement in crashes during weekend nights, and the high frequency of single vehicle accidents. There appears little evidence that any of the special measures aimed at novice drivers have had any substantial impact.
11.4 For efficient safety management processes The Netherlands has been particularly successful over the last two decades in improving the safety of vulnerable road users on the urban network both through physical treatment of 60 km/h roads and through extensive introduction of 30 km/h zones. Greater variation in road network characteristics and higher traffic levels have led to a less clearly defined speed management system in Great Britain than in the other two countries. Changes to the rural single carriageway speed limit system in Britain are being considered but a substantive change in planning speed management is only likely to result from a reduction in the overall speed limit together with the definition of a larger network of higher speed strategic roads of appropriate standard. In urban areas, implementation of lower speeds in residential areas is less well advanced in Britain partly because of pressure from the heavier traffic flows. Speeding is most prominent on rural roads in Sweden, although high proportions of drivers exceed speed limits in urban areas in all three countries. At the same time automatic speed enforcement methods are only just beginning to be implemented in Sweden. Automatic enforcement with fixed penalty fines is particularly widespread in the Netherlands; 70 speeding offences per 100 drivers were recorded in 2002. There are indications in Britain that extensive use of automation may be undermining public confidence and not modifying behaviour in the way intended. There is evidence from Britain and the Netherlands of rising trends in some extreme behaviours such as drinking and driving, hit and run accidents, causing death by dangerous driving and aggravated theft of motor vehicles. In the Netherlands, police enforcement was intensified between 1999 and 2003. In Britain there are plans for more intensified police enforcement activity but much reliance is being placed on detecting motoring offences through targeting more general offending patterns. Implementation of efficient and effective safety policies needs not only strong governmental support but clear guidelines set and budgets provided for the local authorities which will deliver many of these policies. In addition policies need to be seen as fair and balanced and this is best achieved through citizen participation in preparation of the policies. A communication strategy to encourage constructive debate is important so that policies can stand criticism from vocal minorities.
11.5 For safety indicators National fatality totals are affected substantially by the modal split in each country, not only in terms of the relative size of the different user injury groups but also in terms of how the patterns of interactions between different groups affect injury outcome. Although it is difficult to establish clear relationships, analyses suggest that network configuration and 158
traffic levels can also have a major influence on fatality totals. The footprint study should therefore try to take these factors into account. Lorries, and particularly Heavy Goods Vehicles, have an effect on fatality totals that is disproportionate to their relative proportion of total fleet size, as the probability of a fatality resulting from a collision involving an HGV can be four times higher that that from an average collision involving other vehicles. If possible therefore the fleet size and road usage of HGVs should also be included as an indicator of expected fatality total. The influence of young drivers in fatality totals might best be represented by the ratio of their fatality rates compared with experienced drivers. Ratios for male and female drivers are very different. Identifying indicators that reflect enforcement policy is difficult. The outcome will reflect the interactive effect of the law, the enforcement level, the system of sanctions and their application, and the attitudes of the public towards enforcement of the issue. Assessment of the likelihood of countries implementing effective safety policies in particular areas might be done through scoring the evidence of national government support and funding for safety measures and the existence of strong linkages between central and local government and of local partnerships between delivery agents. Further methodological work is required to follow up the first steps taken in Appendix A to examine the extent to which differences between countries accident statistics may be explained by differing traffic and network circumstances. The approach presented here is novel and needs to be elaborated to improve national comparisons of the type attempted in this report.
11.6 Specific recommendations for the European Commission The Commission should • note that on the basis of current trends, despite encouraging reductions in 2004, Sweden and Great Britain are unlikely to contribute their “share” of the European fatality reduction target for 2010. • be aware that national fatality rates appear to be influenced strongly by network characteristics and traffic levels in different countries, and these should be taken into account when assessing what future rates might be achieved. Further methodological work on this topic should be encouraged. • continue to encourage major initiatives in modifying urban road layouts as vulnerable road user rates are unlikely to fall substantially without these unless exposure is reduced through less activity • note that little progress has been made over the last decade in reducing fatality rates among young drivers and encourage more initiatives in this area • encourage further effort to educate motorcyclists about risks and teach them effective strategies for riding more safely, noting particularly the safety issues associated with older drivers taking up motorcycling either for the first time or after a long break • raise awareness of work-related road risk, including its role in the involvement of foreign HGVs in national fatalities • be aware that there is some evidence beginning to emerge of worsening behaviour among some groups of road users and potentially negative influences from changes in the vehicle fleet that will erode casualty reductions • encourage strong and accountable links between central governments and local authorities and increasing public participation in policy definition in order to deliver efficient and effective safety measures that are seen as fair by the majority of road users. 159
11.7 Specific recommendations for the SUN countries Sweden should • make the transport environment more forgiving, to reduce injuries when accidents occur; this could reduce the high proportion of elderly pedestrian and cyclist fatalities and also reduce injuries among elderly car occupants • consider more efforts to improve public acceptance of enforcement initiatives possibly through more community partnerships. There would seem to be the opportunity to increase the use of automatic detection, mainly of speeding offenders. But increased enforcement also needs a change in the legislative system concerning both fines and vehicle owner responsibility to be as effective as possible • seek in the longer term to move to a lower speed limit for two lane rural roads, and develop a network of higher quality rural roads which can safely sustain higher speed limits Britain should • continue to encourage increased use of 20mph zones in areas having high pedestrian accident rates • focus more effort on seeking innovative road designs which cater for mixed vehicular and vulnerable road user activities at the higher traffic flow levels evident in Britain • continue to seek ways of reducing the higher risk associated with pedestrians during the evenings which mainly arises as a result of the pedestrian’s excessive consumption of alcohol • improve facilities for cycling, especially in the context of the Government’s desire to increase cycling • give more attention (than many other countries) to helping drivers recognise the presence and behaviour of motorcyclists within the traffic flow, and give particular attention to countermeasures to reduce bend and overtaking accidents involving motorcyclists. • ensure that the latest policy statements on enforcement promising greater visible presence are accompanied by sufficient resources to achieve this. Ensure that senior police managers demonstrate a genuine commitment to road safety by maintaining an appropriate level of traffic policing • improve its package of drink drive measures and particularly increase the real level of detection to the perceived level. The increasing number of speeding offences also suggests that the balance between enforcement and public awareness might be improved. • seek in the longer term to move to a lower speed limit for two lane rural roads, and develop a network of higher quality rural roads which can safely sustain higher speed limits; through this approach there should be clearer separation in Britain between the road standards (and speed limit bands) in the rural network. The Netherlands should • continue to increase the share of 30km/h roads in urban areas, and make pedestrian crossing design more consistent with road categories • seek measures to reduce the high proportion of pedestrian fatalities involving mopeds • continue to provide for physical separation of cyclists and motorized traffic on main roads and traffic calming measures at intersections. • increase the training required by moped riders aged 16-17 before access to the road, increase (correct) helmet wearing rates, and introduce a more structure 160
• • •
licensing system and vehicle registration plates to help enforcement of the behaviour of this group especially regarding speeding seek ways of increasing the experience gained by young drivers before they take the driving test, including considering accompanied driving before the driving test seek ways to make the road environment further comply with relevant speed limits and investigate particularly the situation on 80 km/h roads which have a high fatality risk consider whether the very high level of speeding offences suggests that a different approach to modifying speeding behaviour might be needed. Greater focus of enforcement on repeat or extreme offenders should be considered.
161
12 References AVV (Dutch Ministry of Transport) Factsheets 1. Pedestrians 2 Pedestrians plus, 2004 Ministery of Transportation and Water Management, department AVV, the Netherlands, 2004 AVV Fact sheet Vulnerable Road Users 05, Group: moped riders (faster category), Ministery of Transportation and Water Management, department AVV, the Netherlands, 2004 Adviesdienst Verkeer en Vervoer (2001). Verkeersveiligheid in gedecentraliseerde banen; investeren in cultuur en structuur. Eindrapport. Bevindingen en advies van de visitatiecommissie naar aanleiding van COVER, de evaluatie van drie convenanten verkeer en vervoer. AVV, Den Haag. Ashton, S.J. and Mackay, G.M. (1979). Some characteristics of the population who suffer trauma as pedestrians when hit by cars and some resulting implications. In: Proceedings of the IRCOBI Conference, Gothenberg Attewell, R.G., Glase, K., and McFadden, M. (2001). Bicycle helmet efficacy: a metaanalysis. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33, pp. 345-352. Beenker, N.J. (2004). Evaluatie 60 km/uur projecten: monitor 2003. [transl.: Evaluation of the 60 km/h projects: monitor 2003] In opdracht van de Unie van Waterschappen. WE101R09 2003, Advies in Verkeer en Informatie, Vught, NL Björketun, U. (Swedish accident data) Bly P, Dix M and C Stephenson (1999) Comparative Study of European child Pedestrian Exposure and Accidents. Report to DETR MVA Limited Bos, J.M.J. & Dijkstra, A. (1998). Road safety effect of small-scale infrastructural measures with emphasis on pedestrian safety. A-98-17. SWOV, Leidschendam. Brandberg,V., B.Johansson, R. & Gustavsson, R. (1999) Calm street!: A planning process for safer, more eco-friendly, pleasant and attractive streets in urban areas. The association of local authorities, 1999 Broughton, J. Involvement of foreign vehicles in road accidents in Great Britain (communication paper) 20040702. Broughton J (2003) The number of motoring and non-motoring offences. TRL562
TRL Report
Broughton J TRL629
TRL Report
(2005)
Car Occupant and Motorcycle deaths 1994-2002
Catshoek, J.W.C. (1996) Rijsnelheden op 80- en 100 km/uur-wegen. [transl.: Traffic speeds op 80- and 100 km/h roads] R-96-58. SWOV, Leidschendam. Catshoek, J.W.D., Varkevisser, G.A. & Braimaister, L.G. (1994). Pilot-snelheidsmetingen binnen de bebouwde kom: indicatieve metingen in drie grote steden, uitgevoerd op vier typen verkeersaders. [transl.: Pilot measurements of speed in urban areas: indicative measurements of three big cities, performed on four types of road] R-94-71. SWOV, Leidschendam. 162
Cauzard, J-P. European drivers and road risk: SARTRE 3 reports: Part 1. Report on principal analyses.INRETS, 2004. Cauzard J-P (2005) Presentation to Irish Road Safety Council Conference on Saving Lives on our Roads. Dublin Christie S M, Lyons R A, Dunstan F D, and Jones S J (2003) Are mobile speed cameras effective? A controlled before and after study. Injury Prevention, 9, 302-306 Clayton A B and M A Colgan (2001) Report 20 . Department for Transport
Alcohol and Pedestrians
Road Safety Research
Clifford Chance (2003) Information gathering on speeding, drink driving and seatbelt use in the Member States. Report for European Commission. Corbett C, Simon F and M O’Connell (1998) The deterrence of high speed driving; a criminological perspective Transport research Laboratory report TRL 296 Davies G P, Harland G and J Broughton (1999) England and Wales TRL Report TRL426
Drink Drive Rehabilitation courses in
Davies G (2003) Reconvictions of drink/drive course offenders; a six year follow up. TRL Report TRL574 De Langen, A.C.B., 'Veiligheid van enkele typen oversteekvoorzieningen in stedelijke gebieden', in Dutch (with English summary), SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, report nr. R-2003-23, Leidschendam, the Netherlands, 2003'. Department for Transport UK (2000) Tomorrow's roads: safer for everyone, UK Department for Transport, Road Safety Source 504644 Department for Transport UK (2002) Research Report No.26
Dangerous Driving and the Law
Road Safety
Department for Transport UK Interim report of the Advisory Group on Motorcycling, UK Department for Transport, Road Safety Source 504538 Department for Transport UK Mopeds and motorcycles: routes to your licence, UK Department for Transport, Road Safety Source 504540 Department for Transport UK Transport Statistics Bulletin. Vehicle Speeds in Great Britain 2003. National Statistics 2004. Ekman L and Hyden C (1999). Pedestrian Safety in Sweden. US Federal Highway Administration report no. FHWA-RD-99-091. Elvik, R. (2001). Area-wide urban traffic calming schemes: a meta-analysis of safety effects. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 33, pp. 327-336. Elvik, R. and Vaa, T. (2004). The Handbook of Road Safety Measures. NY, Amsterdam, Elsevier Science. Engström, I., Gregersen, N.P., Hernetkoski, K., Keskinen, E. and Nyberg, A. (2003), Young Novice Drivers, Driver Education and Training, 491A, Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, Linköping, Sweden. 163
ETSC (1999) Police enforcement strategies to reduce casualties in Europe. European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) Brussels ETSC Safety Monitor Report Number 53.
May 2004.
Eversdijk, J.J.C., Bos, E.K., Jessurun, M., en J.A.M.M. Vissers (2000). PROV 1999. Periodiek Regionaal Onderzoek Verkeersveiligheid. TT00-66. Traffic Test, Veenendaal. Gains A, Humble R, Heydecker B and S Robertson (2002) A cost recovery system for speed and red light cameras – 2 year evaluation. Report to Department for Transport Gains A, Heydecker B, Shrewsbury J, and Robertson S. (2004) The national safety camera programme 3 year evaluation report. PA Consulting Group and UCL for Department for Transport, London Goldenbeld, Ch. and R.D. Wittink, 1993. Mogelijkheden voor het stimuleren van vrijwillig gebruik van fietshelmen. R-93-53. Leidschendam: Stichting Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Verkeersveiligheid. Goldenbeld, Ch. (1993). Handhaving van verkeersregels in Nederland. Rapport R-93-66. SWOV, Leidschendam. Goldenbeld, C. and A.A. Vis (2001). Afwegingen inzake bestuurlijk en publiek draagvlak bij de besluitvorming op het terrein van verkeersveiligheid. R-2001-13. SWOV, Leidschendam. Goldenbeld, C., van Vugt, M.J.H. en H. Schaalma (2003). De fietshelm wint terrein in Nederland.Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidswetenschappen, jaargang 81, nr. 1, p. 18-23. Goldenbeld, Ch., Bijleveld, F., Craen, S. de & Bos N. (2004). Effectiviteit van snelheidscontroles en bijbehorende publiciteit in Fryslân. Rapport R-2003-27. SWOV, Leidschendam. Goldenbeld, C., Holte, H. and Zlender, B. (2004). Changes in individual countries. In: Cauzard, J.P. (Ed.), European drivers and road risk. SARTRE 3 reports. Chapter 11, pp. 207-243. Arceuil Cedex, Institut National de Recherche sur les Transports et leur Sécurité. Gorell R and B Sexton (2004) Performance of safety cameras in London: Final report TRL Published Report PPR027 Crowthorne Gregory K, Inwood C and B Sexton (2003) Cycle helmet wearing in 2002. TRL Report TRL578. Transport Research Laboratory , Crowthorne. Institution of Highways and Transportation (1990) Urban Safety Management Guidelines. London. Junger M, Goldenbeld C, Wurst T, and R C Nagele behaviour of young Dutch road users (in preparation)
Traffic risk, deviancy and problem
Kennedy J, Oakley C, Sumon S, Parry T, Wilkinson E and J Brown (2004) Impact of road humps on vehicle and their occupants Transport Research Laboratory Report 614 Koornstra M, Lynam D,Nilsson G, Noordzij P, Petterson H-E, Wegman, F and P Wouters (2002). SUNflower: A comparative study of the development of road safety in Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, Liedschendam 164
Kuiken, M.J. and Twisk, D.A.M. (2001), Safe Driving and the Training of Calibration, R2001-29, SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, Leidschendam, The Netherlands. Lynam, D. & Twisk, D (1995) .Car driver training and licensing systems in Europe : report prepared by members of Forum of European Road Safety Research Institutes FERSI and supported by European Commission Transport Directorate, DG VII. Crowthorne, Berkshire, Transport Research Laboratory TRL,TRL Report ; No. 147 Mathijssen, M.P.M. en S. de Craen (2004) Evaluatie van verkeershandhavingsplannen. Rapport R-2004-4. SWOV, Leidschendam.
de
regionale
Maycock, G., Lockwood, C.R. and Lester, J.F. (1991), The Accident Liability of Car Drivers, TRL Report 315, Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne. Mayhew, D.R., Simpson, H.M. and Pak, A. (2003), 'Changes in Collision Rates among Novice Drivers During the First Months of Driving', Accident Analysis and Prevention , vol.35, pp. 683-691 Mills P (1989) Pedal cycle accidents; a hospital based study Laboratory Report RR220.
Transport Research
Mountain L, Hirst W, and Maher M. (2004). A detailed evaluation of the impact of speed cameras on safety. Traffic Engineering and Control. September 2004 Nagele, R and Vissers, J (2000). Gedragseffecten van de EMA. Een evlauatieonderzoek naar de leer- en gedragseffecten op middellange termijn van Educataive Maatregel Alcohol en Verkeer. TT 00-119 National Road Administration Speed and time gaps, 2003. Final report. 2004:24 National Road Administration, Consult, Borlänge, Sweden Nilsson, G. Traffic Safety Dimensions and the Power Model to describe the Effect of Speed on Safety, Bulletin 221, 2004. Lund Institute of Technology, Lund University. (www.lub.lu.se/luft/diss/tec_733/tec_733.pdf) Nolen, S (2003). Use of bicycle helmets in Sweden 1988-2002, VTI notat 37-2003, Linköping Noordzij, P.C., Forke, E., Brendicke R., Chinn, B.P., Integration of needs of moped and motorcycle riders into safety measures, Research project PROMISING, workpackage 3, SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, report nr. D-2001-5, the Netherlands, 2001 OECD (1979) Traffic Safety in Residential Areas. OECD Road Research Paris SARTRE (2004) European Drivers and Road Risk Part 1 Report on principal results. J-P Cauzard INRETS Arcueil Cedex, France
Ed
Seijts, G., Kok, G., Bouter, L. and Klip, H. (1995) Barriers to Wearing Bicycle Safety Helmets in the Netherlands. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 149 (2), pp.174–80. Steenaert, C. (2004). Bestaat de ideale 30 km/h wijk?; evaluatie van twintig sober Duurzaam Veilig ingerichte 30 km/h-gebieden. Ministry of Transport and Waterworks, AVV, Rotterdam.
165
Steenbakkers M, Goldenbeld Ch, Dijkman A, Venema A. (1996). Promotie van vrijwillig gebruik van Fietshelmen in de Bollenstreek. Amsterdam, SCV& SWOV. Schoon, C.C., Goldenbeld, Ch., 'Jonge brom- en snorfietsers: kan hun ongevalskans sterk omlaag?' (in Dutch), report nr. R-2003-13, SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, the Netherlands, 2003 Schoon, C.C., 'Traffic legislation and safety in Europe concerning the moped and the A1 category (125 cc) motorcycle', literature and questionnair study commissioned by SNRA, SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, 2004 Simpson, H.M. (ed.) (1996) New to the road : reducing the risks for young motorists : proceedings of the first annual international conference of the Youth Enhancement Service, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, University of California at Los Angeles UCLA, School of Medicine, Brain Information Service, Youth Enhancement Service, Simpson H, Chinn L, Stone J, Elliot M and Knowles J (2002) Monitoring and evaluation of safety measures for new drivers Transport Research L.boratory TRL Report TRL525 Crowthorne Berkshire Summersgill I, Kennedy J, and D Baynes (1996) Accidents at 3-arm priority junctions on urban single carriageway roads TRL Report TRL184 TRL Crowthorne SWOV Factsheets 1. Zone 30: urban residential areas 2. Road safety of children in the Netherlands, SWOV Leidschendam (2004) SWOV, 'Lorries and Delivery Vans', Factsheet, July 2005. Taylor M C, Hall R D, and K Chatterjee (1996) Accidents at 3-arm traffic signals on urban single carriageway roads TRL Report TRL136 TRL Crowthorne Towner E, Dowswell T, Burkes M, Dickinson H, Towner J, and M Hayes (2002) Bicycle helmets – A review of their differences; a critical review of the literature. Safety Research report No 30. London. Department for Transport. Traffic Test (2004). PROV 2003. Periodiek Regionaal Onderzoek Verkeer veiligheid TT04—028. Traffic Test, Veenendaal. Twisk, D.A.M (1994) Young driver accidents in Europe : characteristic young driver accidents in the member states of the European Union. Leidschendam, SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, 1994, R-94-18 Twisk, D.A.M (1996) Title in New to the road : reducing the risks for young motorists : proceedings of the first annual international conference of the Youth Enhancement Service, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, University of California at Los Angeles UCLA, School of Medicine, Brain Information Service, Youth Enhancement Service, Varheli 1996 quoted in Ekman L and Hyden C (1999). Pedestrian Safety in Sweden. US Federal Highway Administration report no. FHWA-RD-99-091. Vis, A.A., Dijkstra A. & Slop, M. (1992). Safety effects of 30 km/h zones in The Netherlands. Accidents Analysis and Prevention, 24, 75-86. Vis, A.A. & Kaal, I. (1993). De veiligheid van 30 km/uur gebieden: een analyse van letselongevallen in 151 heringerichte gebieden in Nederlandse gemeenten. [transl.: The 166
safety of 30 km/h zones: an analysis of injury accidents in 151 converted areas within Dutch towns.] R-93-17. SWOV, Leidschendam. Vis, M. Vehicles involved in fatal or injury accidents in the Netherlands (communication paper) 20040903. Vlakveld, W.P. (2005), Jonge beginnende automobilisten, hun hoge ongevals risico en maatregelen om het ongevalsrisico terug te dringen, R-2005-** (In Dutch), SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, Leidschendam, The Netherlands. Vriend, I., den Hertog, P.C., Stam, C., Goldenbeld, Ch., Schaalma, H., Volkstedt, I. and S. van Eck (2003). Expertmeeting 'Fietshelmgebruik door jonge kinderen in Nederland'. Gehouden op 7 november 2002. Rapport ir.257. Stichting Consument en Veiligheid , Amsterdam. Ward H, Cave J, Morrison A, Allsop R, Evans A, Kuiper C, and L Willumsen (1994) Pedestrian Activity and Accident Risk. AA Foundation for Road safety Research, Farnborough. Webster D. C. and A. M. Mackie (1996) Review of Traffic calming schemes in 20mph zones Transport research laboratory report TRL 215. West, R (1997) Cross cultural generalisability of relationship between antisocial motivation and accident risk. TRL Report 294 TRL Crowthorne Wilson D G (1970) Effects of installing new zebra crossings in Rugby and Chelmsford. TRL report LR 358 TRL Crowthorne
167
Appendix A: The likely effect of traffic flow on the national accident rate International comparisons of traffic data show that traffic flow tends to be higher on roads in Great Britain than in the rest of Europe. For example, Table 7.1 of the first SUNFLOWER report shows that the average daily traffic flow in Sweden is about one quarter of the British value; the average in the Netherlands is much closer to the British value, about one-tenth less. Might this help to explain the differences found by the SUNFLOWER study between casualty rates in Great Britain, the Netherlands and Sweden? This will be considered in 2 stages, firstly for vehicle occupants, then for the slightly more complex case of vulnerable road users. Vehicle occupant casualties The reason for asking this question is that studies of the relationship between the traffic flow on a road and the number of vehicle occupant casualties suggest that Casualties = k. Traffic k (1) where k
