A road safety vision is a description of a desirable state in
the future, based on a theory of how the different components of the traffic system interact or must interact. It is formulated
as a long-term goal without a specified timeframe which may only be attained through large efforts over a long period of time.
However, a vision gives directions to road safety work and
generates reflexion on what improvements are necessary in order to approach the desirable state proclaimed by the vision. If there is commitment and funding, a road safety vision
directs road safety actions and forms the basis of road safety plans
and programmes. Sustainable Safety in the Netherlands and the Swedish Vision
Zero are the best known examples of road safety visions, which also have been adopted by other countries. In both visions,
the core concept is to change the road traffic system into one which eliminates all known opportunities for human error and reduces the physical damage in crashes which are bound to occur. Because the vision is shared by all the stakeholders, responsibility for road safety is also shared between road
users, system designers, road authorities, car manufacturers, etc.,
i.e. all those who are directly or indirectly involved in road traffic.
Vision Zero in Sweden
_ What is it about? In 1997, the Swedish
Parliament adopted the Vision Zero, a bold new road
safety
policy based on four principles:
– Ethics:
human life and health are paramount; they take priority over mobility and other
objectives
of the road transport system.
–
Responsibility chain: the providers, professional organisations and
professional users are
responsible
for the safety of the system. The users have the responsibility to follow rules
and
regulations. If the road users fail to follow rules and regulations, the
responsibility falls
back on
the providers of the system.
– Safety
philosophy: humans make errors; road transport systems should minimise the
opportunity
for error and the harm done when errors occur.
– Driving
mechanisms for change: providers and enforcers of the road transport system
must do their utmost to guarantee
the safety
of all citizens and each of the participants should be ready to change to
achieve safety.
_ Who is involved? The Swedish Road Administration
(SRA) has the overall responsibility for road safety within the road
transport
system. According to the principles of Vision Zero, all other stakeholders in
the field of road transport also have
responsibilities
for ensuring and improving road safety.
_ How effective and costly is it? Vision Zero is estimated to
achieve a possible reduction in the number of deaths by a quarter
to one
third over a ten-year period (1). The adoption of Vision Zero in Sweden helped
in developing further research
and
implementing a new system design. It helped in the implementation of the
upgrading of single carriageways
to 2+1
lanes roads with central cable barriers to shield drivers from opposite
traffic.
Road safety programmes and targets
A road safety programme is more specific and
covers a shorter timeframe than a road safety vision. Preferably,
it is based on a road safety vision. A road safety programme
describes goals and principles for the organisation of road safety
work and specifies the actions or spearheads for the next
five to ten years. A road safety programme also defines the
responsibilities and provides funding and incentives for the
implementation of effective safety measures.
Road safety targets are an important part of a
road safety programme. Targets give a precise, quantitative description
of what is to be attained, and within what timeframe.
Targets are usually formulated with a timeframe of up to 10
years. Targets should be challenging, but also attainable.
Targets are usually set in terms of crash victims (e.g. the number of
fatalities in a country or the number of serious injuries
amongst children). But it is also possible to set additional targets
in terms of intermediate variables related to road behaviour that has a
proven relationship with crash risk (e.g. the number of
speed limit violations on rural roads; or the percentage of
the driving population driving under the influence of
alcohol). The success of road safety programmes and targets
in improving road safety lies in the fact that they increase
obligation and commitment to road safety goals, and that they
provide the basic conditions for achieving these goals.
Commitment and the political will to actually direct road safety
work towards the safety goals can be further improved by
linking these goals to goals in other areas of transport policy,
such as environmental goals.
Efficiency Analysis
Efficiency analyses are conducted to evaluate the
effects of road safety measures or programmes at different
stages of their implementation. A distinction can be made between
impact assessment and cost benefit analysis. Impact assessment refers to the use of information
about the expected effect of a measures, e.g. on the basis
of evaluations of measures elsewhere. Impact assessments provide
a scientific basis for deciding whether or not to implement a
particular measure. Software tools are in use with which the
effects of all types of measures on the numbers of crashes
and on crash
costs can be estimated. Cost-benefit analyses are also conducted prior to
the implementation of specific safety measures and used in decisions about which measures to implement. The costs of
implementing a measure are compared to the expected (monetary)
benefits of preventing crashes and saving casualties. Thus,
by selecting the most cost-effective measures in a
particular area, larger safety effects can be achieved with the
same funds. It is also possible to include benefits other than
safety ones in costbenefits analyses (e.g. related to environment and
mobility).
Systematic assessments and evaluations contribute
significantly to road safety by supporting the implementation of the most effective safety measures. The greatest
challenge is to assure the actual use of the results of the
analyses in the decision process. The EU project ROSEBUD provides
more details about efficiency analyses and an overview
of the costbenefits of a wide variety of measures 1.
As a complement to the assessment of the expected
impacts and cost-efficiency analysis, an evaluation of the
real-size effects of measures, obtained after
implementation, makes it possible to adjust measures which are found not to
be as effective as expected. This type of ‘a posteriori’ impact
assessment would need to be an integral part of road safety
programmes.
The Finnish TARVA programme
_ What is it about? In Finland cost efficiency
analyses are common in road safety decision
making. A
special software programme, called TARVA, is available as a tool.
TARVA
contains crash data for all roads in Finland. It is used to estimate changes in
the
numbers of injury crashes and fatalities of infrastructure measures on the
Finnish
road
network. It can also calculate the monetary benefits and costs. TARVA has been
in
operation since 1994. The programme is flexible and easy to apply. Evaluations
are
regularly
carried out.
_ Who is involved? TARVA is used by the Finnish
road authorities on both the national and regional level. It may be transferred
to other
countries if information is available on infrastructure, crashes, costs of
measures, and if validated crash
models are
available.
_ How effective and costly is it? TARVA improves the efficient
use of resources by supporting the implementation of the
most
effective measures on those roads where they are most useful. Costs include the
costs for data administration,
research
and development (e.g. estimation and validation of crash models), and
administrative procedures.
Resource allocation processes
Resource allocation is crucial for the
effectiveness of road safety programmes. Therefore, the resource allocation
process always needs to be part of a road safety programme.
Conversely, resource allocation processes should be linked to
specific goals for road safety in order to achieve a maximum
benefit of the funds which are allocated in the process.
Preconditions for resource allocation processes are a long enough
timeframe and sufficient budgets. It is also essential to
conduct follow-ups in order to ensure the effectiveness of the
measures which have
Promising
practice
The
Belgian Road Safety Fund
_ What
is it about? The
Belgian Road Safety Fund is a good example of how ‘more safety for
less money’ can be put into effect. There are two
features of this measures that are specifically
promising for the transfer of this measure to
other countries: the use of revenues of
fines for road safety objectives, and the
possibility to call back spent money that cannot be
justified. The fund receives money from fines paid
for traffic offences and gives financial support
to police services for road safety actions
(enforcement), that focus on speeding, drink
driving, seatbelts, heavy goods transport, dangerous
parking, aggressive behaviour in traffic,
and weekend crashes. Expenses have to be
justified, and money that has not been spent
or accounted for can be returned. The Belgian Road
Safety Fund was implemented in 2004.
_ Who
is involved? The
fund can be used by the federal police and local police forces and is managed
by the Federal
Ministries of Mobility and Internal Affairs.
_ How
effective and costly is it? The fund has lead to improved and increased enforcement activities
for types of traffic
behaviour that are known to contribute to severe
crashes. Activities are based on action plans, and the quality and
effectiveness
of these plans must be evaluated. The measure is
cheap as it finances itself. The way money is divided is still
a point of discussion.
_ More
information? www.mobilit.fgov.be
been funded, and to avoid misuse of funds.
Potential drawbacks of such schemes can arise if they lead to
increased use of a specific type of safety measure at the cost of other (and
maybe more effective) measures. Such side effects may be
avoided by stipulating that the provision of resources be
linked to the existence of adequate framework conditions and
depend on the types of measures they are used for. Not
reaching objectives should have consequences in order to assure the
effective use of resources and to stimulate evaluation activity.
trisusilo.hidayati
trisusilo.hidayati
No comments:
Post a Comment