Project no.:
Project acronym:
Project title:
518368
MAX
Successful Travel Awareness Campaigns and Mobility Management Strategies
Integrated Project
6.2 Sustainable Development
1.6.2 Sustainable Surface Transport Objective
3.1.1.1.3 Advancing Knowledge on innovative measures in urban transport
Title of Report:
MAX-WPA TF2 Case Study Analysis
“BOB au volant. Toujours” Designated Driver
campaigns against drink-driving, Belgium
Status: Final
Period covered:
Start date of project:
Date of preparation:
Duration:
1 Oct. 2006
16th July 2008
36 months
Version:
2.0
Prepared by:
FIT
Checked by:
Verified by:
Status:
Dissemination level:
Final
Internal
Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2008)
page 1 / 15
MAX - introduction
MAX ran from 2006 to 2009 and was the largest research project on Mobility Management
within the EU’s sixth framework programme. The MAX consortium, of 28 partners, served to
extend, standardise and improve Mobility Management – it did so in the fields of quality
management, campaigns, evaluation, modelling and land use planning. Much of the work was
directly endorsed by the European Platform on Mobility Management (EPOMM) and
continues to be supported by EPOMM – in order to provide truly Europe-wide expansion,
standardisation and dissemination of Mobility Management.
The work has resulted in several products and services that can be downloaded via
www.epomm.org.
For more information, please visit www.epomm.org or www.max-success.eu
Max Partners
Austrian Mobility Research, FGM-AMOR
(project leader) – Austria
Mobiel 21 – Belgium
ILS Institut für Landes- und
Stadtentwicklungsforschung gGmbH – Germany
Eric N. Schreffler, Transportation Consultant – USA
Equipo de Tecnicos en Transporte y Territorio,
ETT – Spain
FIT Consulting – Italy
Lyle Bailie International Limited – United Kingdom
synergo – Switzerland
Timo Finke Consult Aachen – Germany
Traject – Belgium
Austrian Standards Institute – Austria
Trivector – Sweden
Universities
University of Piraeus Research Centre – Greece
University of Maribor, Faculty of Civil
Engineering – Slovenia
Cracow University of Technology – Poland
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki – Greece
University of Lyon – CNRS-LET – France
Edinburgh Napier University – United Kingdom
University of Central Lancashire – United Kingdom
Otto-von-Guericke-University of Magdeburg – Germany
University of Giessen, Institute for applied and
empirical social research – Germany
Vilnius Gedimas Technical
University – Lithuania
Demonstrators
Almada Municipal Energy Agency,
AGENEAL – Portugal
Almada Municipality – Portugal
Lazio Transport Company COTRAL – Italy
Kortrijk Municipality – Belgium
Tallinn Municipality – Estonia
Munich Municipality – Germany
page 2 / 15
Table of Contents
1. Overview of the case, objectives and research questions ............................................... 4
2. “BOB au volant. Toujours.” ............................................................................................. 5
2.1
Background Context ................................................................................................................................ 5
2.2
“BOB au volant. Toujours.” ................................................................................................................... 5
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
Campaign elements ................................................................................................ 6
Complementary actions .......................................................................................... 6
Campaign results .................................................................................................... 7
3. Method ................................................................................................................................ 9
3.1
Data Sources ........................................................................................................................................... 9
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.4
4
Literature Review ................................................................................................... 9
Sources of quantitative data ................................................................................... 9
Interviews ............................................................................................................... 9
Results & Discussion ....................................................................................................... 10
4.1
Which are the key actors involved within the 2002-2003 Bob-campaign? ........................................... 10
4.2
How policy makers and stakeholders were convinced to organize the Bob-campaign? ....................... 11
4.3
Are there "key actions" for the success of the awareness raising process? .......................................... 11
4.4
What (and why) sectors/types of organizations participated to the Bob-campaign? ............................ 11
4.5
How the activities implemented during the Bob-campaign were integrated in the overall transport
strategy? ............................................................................................................................................................ 12
4.6
Which approaches worked best for the success of the awareness raising process? ............................. 12
4.6.1
4.6.2
4.7
5
Are there particular barriers for the success of the awareness raising process? ................................. 13
Conclusions....................................................................................................................... 14
5.1
6
Message ................................................................................................................ 12
Medium ................................................................................................................ 12
Recommendations for campaigning-the-campaign ............................................................................... 14
References......................................................................................................................... 15
page 3 / 15
1.
Overview of the case, objectives and research questions
“Bob au volant. Toujours” is a awareness campaign implemented in Belgium in 2002/2003 against the drinkingdriving habit. This report focuses on this campaign to deepen the awareness raising process of the key actors in
the framework of Task Force 2.
The Task Force 2 aims at analysing the ways through the policy makers and stakeholders are convinced to
undertake a campaign, participating or organising it. This particular case concerns the drinking-driving problem
in Belgium and suggests an alternative mood to this habit: the designated driver, which is indeed Bob. This case
gives good elements to discuss and analyse a 13 years campaign, which has been implemented at national level
and it finally is a very succesfull example.
The first step is the campaign description (background context of the Bob concept and the 2002/2003 campaign),
which will be followed by the investigation on the awareness raising process of relevant key actors. In order to
go through this process seven research questions will be used:
1.
Which are the key actors involved within the 2002-2003 Bob-campaign?
2.
How policy makers and stakeholders were convinced to organize the Bob-campaign?
3.
Are there "key actions" for the success of the awareness raising process?
4.
What (and why) sectors/types of organizations participated to the Bob-campaign?
5.
How the activities implemented during the Bob-campaign were integrated in the overall transport
strategy?
6.
Which approaches worked the best for the success of the awareness raising process?
7.
Are there particular barriers for the success of the awareness raising process?
Desk research activities and personal interviews have been used to deepen the process and to understand the
approach used for persuading the key actors to support the campaign. The investigation’s results will be the basis
for designing and implementing “campaigning the campaign” demonstrators.
page 4 / 15
“BOB au volant. Toujours.”
2.
2.1
Background Context
This case is about the designated driver campaign implemented in Belgium from the November 2002 to the
January 2003, “Bob au volant. Toujours.” This campaign is one of the successful campaigns using the “Bob”
concept which had been developed by the Belgian Road Safety Institute (IBSR – BIVV) and Arnoldus Group
(Belgian Brewers’ association) in the ‘90s.
The IBSR is an independent institution, linked with the Belgian Ministry of Transport, that organises awareness
campaigns on mobility and transport with a special focus on roads’ safety. The IBSR has been working on
campaigns against the drinking-driving from the ‘70s and in the ‘80s. They launched the first designated driver
campaigns, whose the main challenge is the recommendation of choosing a driver for going out who will not be
drinking any alcoholinc drink.
In the first ‘90s the Arnoldus Group, which was already collaborating with IBSR, launched the idea of
implementing a campaign against the drinking-driving based on the positive idea of designating a driver, as it
has been done before. The IBSR-Arnoldus collaboration brought the idea of the “Bob concept”, as a matter of
fact of giving a name to the designated driver. Moreover the climate in Belgium was very helpful in that period
since in 1994 a new law fixing the alcohol limit for driving at 0,5% was approved, and additional police control
was set up. Those elements were an helpful ground for changing the behaviours from the fear of police controls
to a responsible attitude to the risks of drinking-driving. The aim is to make the drinking-driving as socially
unacceptable behaviour.
The first “Bob” campaign was launched in 1995 and it had gotten very good results since in 2001 the 96% of
Belgians older than 15, knew the Bob concept. The campaigns were implemented in the winter time but
following the police suggestion, there are now two campaigns every year: in winter and in summer time for the
festivals and other summer events.
The “Bob campaigns” are based on multiple levels approach:
1.
Targeted actions: specific actions addressed to a target audience (for example young people);
2.
General public awareness raising: general awareness campaign with posters, radio and TV spots,
gadgets; these tools usually valorise the designated-Bob in a humoristic and non-paternalistic ways.
3.
Police controls: increasing the police control and the Bob key-rings;
4.
Collaboration with HORECA sector (Hotels, Restaurants, Catering) to provide some material and
information about the drinking-driving.
Behind these actions, since 1998 the campaigns foresee the Bob Bus for informing young people about the risk
of drinking-driving. Even the police controls have been made more “interesting” since a small present (a keyring) is given to successful Bob drivers. Furthermore from 2001 the campaigns had been co-funded by the
European Commission, Directorate General for Energy and Transport, not only in Belgium but in 17 European
countries: this shows the great success of the Bob concept.
2.2
“BOB au volant. Toujours.”
Each campaign is focused on a particular theme and the 2002-2003 campaign was entitled “Bob au volant.
Toujours” (Bob at the wheel. Always.). The general objective of the Bob-campaign remained the same as in the
past years insiting on the fact that:
page 5 / 15

drinking and driving do not go together;

before the party starts, partygoers should designate a driver who engages himself/herself to stay sober
and to bring the others home safely.
By insisting on the first point and by offering an alternative for drinking and driving in the second point, the
campaign, in the long run, aims to make drinking and driving socially unacceptable. Apart from these general
objectives, the 2002-2003 campaign had a specific objective: it was especially addressed to 35-55 years old men,
since the post-test from the previous year had shown that this target group in particular was the least aware of the
problem and the least convinced that something should be done about this problematic behaviour.
2.2.1 Campaign elements
The different target group (35-55 men) was not the only new element in the 2002-2003 camapign since even the
communication method was changed that year. The communication approach shifted from a positive message
(valorisation of Bob) to a negative one (showing what might happen if a non-Bob drives).

Posters: two types of posters were prepared: big billboards to set along the main roads and the small
posters to be fixed at public buildings (such as schools, municipalities, police stations, libreries, etc.).
These posters were done in French, Flemish or German depending on the location and showed the
tragic consequences of driving without Bob, as a matter of fact of drinking and driving.

TV and Radio spots: the spots both on TV and radio showed the negative and tragic consequence of not
having Bob as a drivers, as well as the posters did. TV spots focused the attention on the 30 years old
people and showed a car crash of those people taking the car after a dinner in a restaurant; however
humoristic elements were added to avoid paternalistic moods. The slogan was: “Make sure Bob is
behind the wheel. Always.” Radio spots too kept the same approach: a voice listed the car equipment
and then crash occurred since the lack of Bob: “But no Bob”. The spots were broadcasted in the French,
Flemish and German TV channels and radio stations. Furthermore, TV programmes gave room for
discussing the campaign.

Internet: on internet it is possible to find many useful information about Bob campaigns, not only
regarding the 2002-2003 campaign. In particular it should be underlined the official Bob-website
www.bob.be (where it is possible to watch the spots), and the IBSR website www.ibsr.be (French) and
www.bivv.be (Flemish).

Press: first of all the IBSR’s magazine, “Via Secura” paid attention to the Bob campaign and
advertisements are put in the newspapers.

Controls: repression is an important element of the Bob campaigns since the fear to be caught is a lever
to change the behaviours. The “objective risk of being caught”, because of the increasing of breath tests,
should bring the car drivers the “subjective risk of being caught”, which can change the behaviours.
Every year during the campaign the police controls are increased as well as the breath tests: in 2003 in
particular IBSR asked the police forces improved the number of alcocol tests. Furthermore, during the
campaign the police men gave a key-ring as a present to the Bob drivers.
2.2.2 Complementary actions
In addition to the actions in the framework of the IBSR campaign, there were several complementary actions
implemented by different partners in coordination with the Bob campaign but autonomously. Here follow the
main complementaty actions (this section doesn’t concern only the 2002-2003 campaign but it is the usual
approach of the Bob campaigns):
page 6 / 15

Co-operation with Horeca (catering industry): thanks to Arnoldus Group the Bob campaigns reached
the catering sector as well. Bars, restaurants, pubs received an invitation to register from IBSR: they can
register to get information and some materials.

Bob bus: as seen before, from 1998 there are Bob-buses with two main fuctions. It is possible to have
an alcohol test for free and a driving test with a special simulator to simulate the driving with more then
0,5% alcohol. It is possible (and so now) for party-organisers to ask the Bob bus to be in front of the
party location.

Public Transport: the regional public transport companies participated too launching an independent
action to present themselves as a public Bob that brings people home safely.

Co-operation with private companies: big companies and enterprises participated spreading awareness
against the drinking-driving among their employees. IBSR sent emails or materials asking the
contribution of these companies that can decide to support the campaign by sending to their employees
emails stressing the importance of having Bob driving the car.
2.2.3 Campaign results
The 2002-2003 campaign was evaluated through face to face interviews with 1074 persons over 15 made by
INRA Belgium. The investigation wants to evaluate the impact of the campaign regarding both the familiarity of
Belgians with the Bob concept and the change on behaviours. These following results show the positive impact
of the campaign, the familiarity to the Bob concept. In particular, it should be underlined the results regarding
the target group of the 2002-2003 campaing, the 35-55 years old men.
There is quite a differente in the familiarity with Bob between the 55 years old and older and those younger than
55. In this last group the non-assisted (spontaneous) familiarity with Bob is much higher
Furthermore the 65% of drivers in the 35-55 years old men group were convinced by the campaign, while the
52% of people younger then 35 and 61% of older than 55.
page 7 / 15
Another important element is the subjective risk, which still remained quite slow despite the increasing of the
controls and the breath tests (objective risk). During a normal drive, the subjective risk of being caught for
driving under the influence of alcohol is extremely low. This risk is most felt by the 35 till 54 years old and least
perceived by the 55 years old and younger.
The most powerful media are television and billboards to reach different target groups. The television spot was
more targeted at the age group of 55+ and the billboards at those of –55. The radio spot also reached people
younger than 55 very well. The TV and radio spots were especially remembered by men and people younger
than 55.
page 8 / 15
3.
Method
The above described campaign “Bob au volant. Toujours” provides useful element to investigate the awareness
raising process. The investigation have been carried out throughout literature review, data analysis and personal
interviews with campaign’s expert. In this case, the Chief of Communication Department of IBSR has been
interviewed. The analysis of collected information responds to the seven questions arisen to investigate the
awareness raising process.
3.1
Data Sources
3.1.1 Literature Review
1.
EGSR Comité d’accompagnement, Dossier 2 – Alcool et drogues illecites
2.
Designated Driver Campaigns against Drink-Driving in Europe 2003
3.
Présentation de la campagne “BOB au Volant. Toujours“ – Le Cabinet de la mobilite et de l’economie
sociale (2003)
4.
Pan-European Designated Driver campaign 2003-2004, Final Report
3.1.2 Sources of quantitative data
1.
Designated Driver Campaigns against Drink-Driving in Europe 2003
2.
Présentation de la campagne “BOB au Volant. Toujours“ – Le Cabinet de la mobilite et de l’economie
sociale (2003)
3.1.3 Interviews
Behind the desk research, interviews with the expert person involved in the organisation of the Bob campaigns
have been carried out: Schevelenbos, chief of Communication Department of IBSR.
page 9 / 15
4
Results & Discussion
Thanking to the literature review and the interview with the IBSR expert, many data have been collected. This
section analyses and discusses the collected data in order to understand how the key actors’ awareness had been
arisen for organising the Bob campaign. It should be underlined that the overall methodology has been changed
and adapted to the particular case of Bob.
These campaigns had been running since 1995 but the campaign we focused on was implemented in 2002-2003:
this has consequences on the understanding of the awareness process. For that reason the investigation took into
great consideration the first years of the campaigns: the interviewed expert has been asked about the process in
the ‘90s to highlight how/why the relevant actors decided to make such campaign against the drinking-driving.
Furthermore it should also be stressed the nature of the IBSR, which is an independent institution linked to the
Ministry of Transport whose main duty is making campaigns on the road safety. As designing and implementing
campaign is one of their usual duties, it hasn’t been a proper awareness raising process, as it will be explained in
this section.
4.1
Which are the key actors involved within the 2002-2003 Bob-campaign?
In the 2002-2003 Bob campaign, the main actors involved were the INSR, Arnoldus Group as well as the police
service. Moreover many smaller stakeholders (public transport companies, private companies, Horeca industry)
participated to the campaign with independent actions implemented in the framework of the Bob campaign.
The “Bob au volant. Toujours” campaign, as well as the others, was organised by a private publicity firm. Every
year IBSR organises a meeting addressed to publicity firms in which the campaign (its goals, concept and target
groups) is explained. Then a bid is organised and the successful firm designs and implements the campaign: TV
and radio spots, billboards, brochures, advertisements, etc .
Figure 1 – “BOB au Volant. Toujours“ campaign’s advertisement
“Bob au volant. Toujours” wasn’t the first campaign, as they have been running since 1995. As mencioned
before, the idea came from a suggestion of Arnoldus Group to the IBSR, that together designed the Bob concept.
The participation of Arnoldus in the campaign gave a great impact in terms of budget increasing, which allows a
greater campaign. From 1995 the partnership hasn’t changed so much as only Assuralia (the insurances
association) joined it, even if Assuralia has been (and so now) in the Management Committee of IBSR.
Furthermore many small partners joined the campaign – or asked to join – due to the Bob success but they are
not integrated in the partnership since they organise complementary actions or contribute as a sponsors for
specific actions, or giving information on Bob and so on, as stressed before.
page 10 / 15
The IBSR has been doing several campaing on safety on the roads and the Arnolds Group and IBSR had already
collaborated before on other issues, that’s why it hadn’t been a real awareness raising process for the Bob
campaign. Furthermore the success of Bob garanteed a good impact among the IBSR employees and
departments. In the first years the IBSR had to convince the police service that, even if they were willing to
contribute to the repression side of the campaign, had been having (and so now) many budget’s problems.
4.2 How policy makers and stakeholders were convinced to organize the Bobcampaign?
This research question doesn’t apply to the particular Bob case as the interviewed expert stressed that they didn’t
try to convince any specific actors. The co-operative attitude between IBSR and Arnoldus Group made easy the
implementation of the campaign from the first year. Then the success of Bob was the main lever for continuing
the campaigns and for the participation of other actors.
Because of these particular situations it is not possible to identify a path for the convincing process. In other case
studies, a strategy, arguments, and actions have been investigated to understand how the key actors have been
convinced, but in that case this approach doesn’t fit. However the positive tone of Bob message has been a
successful argument for the participation of the key actors.
For example, the Horeca industry wasn’t at the beginning enthousiastic about that campaign since they feared a
decreasing of their clients. However the success and the positive approach of Bob as well as the actions of the
Arnoldus Group, gained the participation of bars, cafés, restaurants. Indeed the Bob campaigns don’t ask for
avoiding alcoholic drinks but for avoiding drinking-driving: this argument convinced the Horeca industry to
participate.
4.3
Are there "key actions" for the success of the awareness raising process?
Since no actions have been undertaken to convince key actors, it is not possible to respond to this question.
However the interviewed expert underlined that the success of Bob campaign was the best argument and reason
to get the cooperation of the involved partners.
4.4 What (and why) sectors/types of organizations participated to the Bobcampaign?
Apart from the IBSR and Arnoldus Group that launched the Bob concept, the organizations involved in the Bob
campaign have been police service, public transport companies, small companies in the Horeca industry, private
companies doing actions forward to their employees.
The reason of the participation changes on the base of the activity sector but the success of Bob and the social
commitment are common reasons.
Concerning the Belgian brewers of the Arnoldus Group, the main reason of the active role in such campaigns is
the positive tone of the campaign’s message launched by Bob: they are of course more interested to such a
message rather then asking for no alcoholic drinks. Only Bob indeed doesn’t drink while the others can buy
alcoholic drinks. Furthermore the prevention actions are more suitable for the Arnoldus Group rather then paying
reparation because of accidents.
The prevention approach fits, for different reasons, to the police service’s work and the Assuralia’s needs. Police
prefers to pay attention for increasing awareness on the risks of drinking-driving, even if the limited budget
hasn’t always allowed to improve the controls as suitable. The insurance companies have a strong business
interest in prevention since it will bring less accidents and less paying reparations.
page 11 / 15
The three public transport companies in Belgium (for the Brussels Capital Region, for the Wallon Region, for the
Flemish Region) participated in several Bob campaigns giving information about Bob to the passengers and
sometimes organising mobility facilitations for special events (e.g. the New Year Eve). Their aim is to gain more
clients showing themselves as a public Bob that can safely bring clients at home.
4.5 How the activities implemented during the Bob-campaign were integrated in
the overall transport strategy?
The awareness on the problem of the drinking-driving has increased both in the people and the decision makers
thanks to the Bob campaigns. In particular the attention to this problem has been incorporated in the transport
strategy, as it is showed by the “Etats Generaux de la Sécurité Routière” that foresaw figures to be reached on
the drinking driving matter.
Even the Bob integrated approach has been included by the transport strategy at federal level: the drinkingdriving problem is now undertaken in multiple approach integrating many related issues such as prevention
actions, controls’ increasing, Horeca industry’s collaboration, actions targeted to particular groups. Furthermore
the problem is faced by inter-ministerial meetings (Minister of Transport, of Education, etc..).
4.6 Which approaches worked best for the success of the awareness raising
process?
4.6.1 Message
The positive tone of the message given by the campaign itself played an active role in convincing key actors to
join. No particular messages were used especially for persuading the actors but the campaign’s message was a
lever. As mentioned before the success of the Bob concept and the related campaigns pushed sponsors and
companies to contribute in different ways. Another positive message is the prevention, on which the campaigns
are based: it is a strong business motivation for Arnoldus Group and for Assuralia for example. The
communication approach also adopted negative message showing the conseguences of drinking-driving.
Figure 2 – An example of advertisement used for “BOB au Volant. Toujours“
4.6.2 Medium

Billboards posters and small posters

Television spots

Radio spots

Internet

Catering campaign
page 12 / 15
4.7 Are there particular barriers for the success of t he awareness raising
process?
The success of Bob among the people and institutions and private enterprises was so strong that no barriers had
been found for organising such campaigns.
However other kinds of barriers have been meet in the past years:

Different opinions among the involved actors on particular camapign’s issues from a marketing or
strategy point of view (e.g. target group, tone of the message), but never on Bob or the campaigns
themselves.

Organizations or associations taking the Bob signs without an official agreement by IBSR and the
partnership.

Critics from Eastern European Countries which prefer campaigns against the alcohol (because they face
alcoholism problems), while Bob is not against alcohol but against the drinking-driving.
page 13 / 15
5
5.1
Conclusions
Recommendations for campaign i ng-the-campaign
This case is about the designated driver campaign implemented in Belgium from the November 2002 to the
January 2003, “Bob au volant. Toujours.” This campaign is one of the successful campaigns using the “Bob”
concept which had been developed by the IBSR and Arnoldus Group (Belgian Brewers’ association) in the ‘90s.
The co-operative attitude between IBSR and Arnoldus Group made easy the implementation of the campaign
from the beginning phase (‘90s). IBSR implemented several campaing on road safety and had already
collaborated with the Arnolds Group before on other issues, that’s why there was not a real awareness raising
process for the Bob campaign.
In a successive phase, the success of Bob was the main lever for continuing the campaigns and for the
participation of other actors. The used positive tone of Bob message has been a successful argument in
convincing key actors to join. The reason of the participation changes on the base of the activity sector but the
success of Bob concept and the related campaigns pushed sponsors and companies to contribute in different
ways. The interviewed expert, in fact, underlined that the success of Bob campaign was the best argument and
reason to get the cooperation of the involved partners.
Concerning “Bob au volant. Toujours.” Campaign, the different target group (35-55 years old men) was not the
only new element in the campaign since even the communication method was changed. The communication
approach shifted from a positive message (valorization of Bob) to a negative one (showing what might happen if
a non-Bob drives). The prevention approach was also a successful element to the awareness raising process
because it fit the needs of the different key stakeholders involved in the campaign such as Assuralia (insurances
association) and Police. The main reason is that the insurance companies have a strong business interest in
prevention since it brings less accidents and less paying reparations, while Police prefers to pay attention for
increasing awareness on the risks of drinking-driving even if the limited budget hasn’t always allowed to
improve the controls as suitable.
Analysing the campaign’s results (evaluated through face to face interviews), this approach seems to be a
successful one to the effectiveness of the campaign in terms of behaviours’ change: the 65% of drivers in the 3555 years old men group were convinced by the campaign, while the 52% of people younger then 35 and 61% of
older than 55. The most powerful media were television and billboards to reach different target groups. Anyway
for what concerns the subjective risk, it still remained quite slow despite the increasing of the controls and the
breath tests: this risk is most felt by the 35 till 54 years old and least perceived by the 55 years old and younger.
Finally the awareness on the problem of the drinking-driving has increased both in the people and the decision
makers thanks to the Bob campaigns as demonstrated by the attention to this problem which has been
incorporated in the national transport strategy.
page 14 / 15
6
References
EGSR Comité d’accompagnement, Dossier 2 – Alcool et drogues illecites
Designated Driver Campaigns against Drink-Driving in Europe 2003
Présentation de la campagne “BOB au Volant. Toujours“ – Le Cabinet de la mobilite et de l’economie sociale
(2003)
Pan-European Designated Driver campaign 2003-2004, Final Report
IBSR website : www.ibsr.be
BOB website: www.bob.be
page 15 / 15