Road Safety Targets in the EU and its Member
States: Towards Higher Accountability
Vojtech EKSLER
European Transport Safety Council (ETSC)
Workshop for Setting Regional and National Road Traffic Causality Reduction Targets in the
ESCWA Region
16-17June, 2009
Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
European Transport Safety Council
• Non-governmental, non-profit making organization
promoting science-based approach to policy making
• 42 organisations from across Europe under one unique
umbrella promoting science-based transport safety
measures at EU level
• More then 200 experts contributing to ETSC’s Reviews,
Policy Papers, Newsletters, Positions, Lectures, Press
Releases, Year Books, etc.
• The European Commission, member organisations,
member states and corporate sponsors are funding our
work
• Secretariat staff members do their utmost to insert the
knowledge of ETSC members and experts into EU
transport safety policy-making
Climate change targets vs. Road safety targets
What is there in common?
 Something abstract became concrete
 Facts and results-based policy making enabled
 Way to leadership is paved
?
“The number of fatalities in any country is the
number that the country is prepared to tolerate…“
Smeed
The ultimate goal: No road deaths
How to get there?
Introduce and implement safe
system approach in a long-term
Adopt a level of ambition to eliminate
road fatalities and serious injuries in
the longer term - with steady
progress through interim (good
practice) strategies and targets in
the short to medium term
OECD, 2008
Why and what to set goals for?
Setting goals in road safety alone leads to improvements
by creating a structure for their realization, monitoring…
The overall goal needs to be accompanied by partial
objectives so as to allow for evaluation, accountability
Eksler, 2009
Wegman et al., 2004
Towards road safety management
Quantitative targets create demand for managerial framework.
It brings more professionalism to road safety improvement
process through benchmarking (e.g. RS performance index)
e.g. implement ISO framework for road traffic safety management systems…
“If you cannot measure it,
you cannot improve it.”
Lord Kelvin
Eksler, 2009
EU target
In 2002, the EU set an ambitious target to
halve the number of road victims between
2001 and 2010
Shared target supposing different
contribution from Member States
White Paper (2001)
"European transport policy
for 2010 : time to decide“
Limited accountability measures and tools
availability
3rd Road Safety Action
Programme (2003)
Sharing responsibility
Shared responsibility (3rd RSAP)
Weakness comes from the lack of
accountability – responsibility is not
sufficiently attributed to concrete actors.
Improve road
users behavior
Make safer
vehicles
Improve road
infrastructure
EU target
1st EU target triggered further road safety improvement
particularly in Western Europe
70000
60000
EU27
EU15
EU10
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
ETSC, 2009
EU progress towards targets
Currently, a delay of 6 years for the EU as a whole.
54,400
53,400
50,400
47,400
45,400
43,100
42,600
39,000
27,200
But who are the
good and bad?
Still in the clouds…
Contribution of Member States (1)
Five countries at sight of the target
France and Luxembourg are almost there
2%
0%
-2%
-4%
-4,4% (EU-27)
-6%
-7,4% (EU target needed)
-8%
-10%
ETSC, 2009
Contribution of Member States (2)
Most EU countries have a general road safety target
Many of them a very detailed strategy with sub-targets
No accountability mechanisms exists and the EU has no
legal instrument to put a pressure on underperforming
countries.
Only approach available is “blame and shame” used by
NGOs, associations, media
ETSC has been monitoring contribution of MSs and their
performance in various areas of road safety
Case of France (1)
• Targets introduced bottom-up
• Political will from the highest level - to
bring credibility to the enforcement system
• “Zero Tolerance” of speeding offences
• Introduction of a fully automated speed
management system
French Road Safety Observatory
estimated that 75% of the massive
reduction in road deaths in early 2000’s
was due to reduced speeds.
Case of France (2)
• A new target set in 2008: no more than
3,000 deaths in 2012
• Through speed management, drink-driving
counter-measures, red-light passing and
safe-distance keeping checks
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Case of Portugal (1)
• Top-down approach in target setting
• In 2003, the 1st National Road Safety Plan adopted with the
objective of -50% of road deaths by 2009
• More than 100 concrete measures involving revision of
Highway Code, Extensive high risk site removal schemes
• Sub-targets: 90%+ seat belt wearing rate on front seats,
60%+ on rear seats
160
140
1999
120
100
80
60
40
56
45
63
27
42
2
00
t1998
150
Fatalities on Black Spots
142
100
63
42
50
49
0
45
56
27
18
13
Case of Portugal (2)
• Made good use of EU funds to improve road network
• New National Road Safety Strategy includes new
quantitative targets for the period 2008-2015
• New subtarget on injuries
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Lessons from other countries
• Czech Republic: Over-ambitious target with the absence of
a credible enforcement system failed to bring effects
• Belgium: Separatelly setting targets for 3 federal regions
helped to drive actions at relevant level of governance and
led to significant improvements
• Scandinavian countries: Sub-targets were established with
the help of economic criteria and closely monitored
• Germany: No national target, but comprehensive approach
at local administrative level bringing fruits in long-term
• Netherlands, UK: Targets in terms of number of Police
controls
European perspectives
• Road Safety Action Plan 2011-2020 under preparation
• Most likely -40% road fatality reduction target and separate
target for road injuries
• Most likely separate targets for particular road-user groups
• Benchmarking and data driven policy-making on the rise
• More accountability and professionalism...
Thank you for your attention!
[email protected]
www.etsc.eu