International Road Safety Data,
Policy Development and Cooperation
Stephen Perkins
Joint Transport Research Centre
2
The International Transport Forum at the OECD
Annual
Think Tank
Summit
Intergovernmental
Organisation
3
Outline
• Policy for accelerating reductions in deaths and
serious injuries
• Targets and the importance of data and analysis
• International benchmarking and policy transfer
• UN Decade of Action
• Improving data on serious injuries
• Transfer of evaluation results
4
Road Safety Policy
Towards Zero: Ambitious Targets and the
Safe System Approach
•
Sweden and Netherlands have led the way
•
Vision Zero and Sustainable Safety
•
Inspiring long term vision to eliminate deaths
and serious injuries
•
Steady progress through interim targets
based on funded interventions
•
Netherlands targets 2020:
–
Deaths < 500
–
Serious injuries < 10 600
5
Reduction in Fatalities: Change 2010/2001
0.0%
-30.0%
-40.0%
-50.0%
New Zealand
Canada
United States
Australia
Norway
Poland
Korea
Greece
Israel
Belgium
Finland
Czech Republic
Switzerland
Hungary
Denmark
Italy
Austria
Japan
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Germany
Ireland
Portugal
Slovenia
France
[ Cambodia: +300% ]
-55%
Sweden
-60.0%
Luxembourg
Spain
-10.0%
-20.0%
-18%
25
6
Killed per 100 000 IRTAD countries 2010
20
15
10
5
0
7
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Killed per Billion Vehicle km 2010
Ingredients for success8
reported by countries
• Active and passive safety of vehicles
– Passenger protection (EuroNCAP)
– Electronic Stability Control
• Speed management
– Automatic speed cameras
– Section control
• Safer infrastructure
– Expansion of Motorway network
– Median barriers
• Young drivers
– Graduated licensing
• Legislation
– Demerit point systems
– Random breath testing
– Lower BAC level for young and professional drivers
9
Policy context for success of the past decade
1. Political awareness
–
E.g.. President Chirac (France) in July 2002 ; Spain
2. Adoption of safe system approach principles
–
« Towards zero » progressively become the standard
–
Sweden and NL were pioneers
3. Adoption of road safety targets
–
ECMT and EC (-50%) targets
–
National targets
4. Regular monitoring
5. Road safety action plans
The UN Decade of Action for
Road Safety 2011-2020
11 May 2011
11
UN Decade of Action
United Nations Road Safety Collaboration
www.who.int/roadsafety/en/index.html
www.roadsafetyfund.org
DECADE GLOBAL PLAN
Five pillars for a Safe Systems approach
Managing
road
safety
Safer
Roads &
Mobility
Safer
Vehicles
Safer User
behaviour
www.who.int/roadsafety/decade_of_action/
Post-crash
response
13
UN Decade of Action
• UN Decade of Action Global Plan based on
the safe system approach
• Five Pillars
Objectives:
• Maximise fundraising potential of
the UN Decade of Action for Road
Safety
• Promote the Tag to generate funds
from corporate and philanthropic
sectors and public
Private sector engagement:
• Global Supporters donate
$150,000 per year, minimum 3
years
- directed funding, to agreed
project
- undirected donation
• Supporters can join for
$15,000 a year
Safe road infrastructure assessments
in more than 60 countries.
Motorcycle safety campaigns and
‘helmets for kids’ in Vietnam and Cambodia
19
Research Collaboration to
Benefit Safety of all Road Users
IRTAD: International Traffic Safety
Data and Analysis Group
• Mission
– High standard road safety database
– Analysis of data with peers
– Network for road safety data and analysis professionals
• Expert working group
– Under the umbrella of ITF and OECD
– Funded separately by subscription from members
21
60 Members
33 Countries
22
Knowledge transfer: IRTAD Twinning Projects
• Objective to progressively expand geographical coverage, while
keeping a high quality database
• Twinning : Existing Member + LMIC:
– Audit of national crash data system: collection and analysis
– Training focused on specific
– Regular exchanges of staff over 3 years
• Argentina – Spain:
– After one year, adoption in almost all Provinces of a common crash
data form
• Cambodia – Netherlands
– Linking Police and Hospital Data
– Target seting for 2011-2020 road safety strategy
• Funding through voluntary contributions
– MOU with the World Bank
– FIA Foundation
– IADB, Others
23
Ibero American Road Safety Observatory
• Following the succesful twinning between
Argentina – Spain
• Creation of the Ibero American Road Safety
Observatory (OISEVI):
– Launched by 18 countries in March 2012
• IRTAD LAC database with a Spanish interface
• Objective: learning tool and progressive inclusion
in IRTAD
IRTAD MEMBER COUNTRIES
IRTAD-LAC
25
26
The Serious Injury Problem
140
• Why slower progress?
140
Korea
120
120
100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
INJURED
FATALITIES
20
20
0
1995
0
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
• Can we trust the data?
2010
Fatalities
France
Germany
3 992
3 648
Hospitalised
30 393
x2
62 620
Injured
84 461
x4
371 170
27
We need better injury record systems
• To assess the real number of serious injuries
– Real costs of road crashes
• To understand the consequences of different
crash types
• To design adequate countermeasures to
reduce serious injures
28
Reporting injuries: IRTAD recommendations
• Complement police data with hospital data
• Medics not police to assess severity of injuries
• Classify injuries to international standards
– Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS)
• Link police and hospital data
– Deterministic and probabilistic methods exist
• Agree an international definition of serious
injuries for research and benchmarking
Define ‘seriously injured road casualty’ as
injuries assessed at level 3 or more on the
Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale “MAIS3+”
29
MAIS3+
Example
Region
Injury description
Head and Neck
Cerebral contusion
3
Face
No injury
0
Chest
Flail chest
4
Abdomen
Minor contusion of liver
2
Complex rupture of spleen
5
Extremity
Fractured femur
3
External
No injury
0
MAXIMUM
Report:
http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/
irtadpublic/pdf/Road-Casualties-Web.pdf
Abbreviated
Injury Scale
5
30
New Collaborative Road Safety Research
• Cycling Safety
• Motorcycling Safety
• Implementing the Safe System Approach
31
Sharing Road Safety
Developing an International Framework
for Crash Modification Functions
 Road safety policy is increasingly dependent on sound indicators of
the effectiveness of countermeasures - CMFs are fundamental
 Prospect of rapid advances and major cost savings through the
transfer of results internationally
 Transferability relies on analysing the extent to which a CMF is
dependent on the circumstances in which it was developed
 Variability in CMF research results is a major deterrent to
transferability - can be reduced by making the CMF a function of
the relevant circumstances
32
Recommendations
 Road safety policies should undergo performance and
efficiency evaluation - cannot be undertaken without CMFs
 Follow the guidance in the report and provide information on
essential reporting elements
 Coordination of research on priority countermeasures should
be considered within an international group (TRB, PIARC, other)
 Transnational database is needed for CMFs
 A concerted effort should be made to publicize benefits of
decision-making based on CMFs
33
Conclusions
• Safe system principles standard for developing road safety policies.
• Implies a long term vision that no one killed or seriously injured.
• And interim targets based on modelled impact of measures adopted.
• Modelling impacts needs reliable crash modification functions.
• Needs good data and analysis, including injury data.
• Police and hosptial data are complementary and can be usefully linked.
• International definition of serious injury is needed MAIS 3+ should be considered.
• International benchmarking and knowledge transfer important –
enhanced opportunities in Decade of Action.
Thank you
stephen.perkins@oecd.org
www.internationaltransportforum.org