Designing the European Road Accident Observatory Pete Thomas (IP-coordinator), Andrew Morris, VSRC,...

Designing the European Road Accident Observatory

Pete Thomas (IP-coordinator), Andrew Morris, VSRC, UK

George Yannis, NTUA, Greece

Philippe Lejeune, CETE-SO, France

Paul Weseman, SWOV, Netherlands

Gilles Vallet, INRETS, France

Ward Vanlaar, IBSR, Belgium

30th International Traffic Record Forum

Nashville, Tennessee, July 25-29, 2004

Contents1. Extent and nature of casualty problem in EU2. Background to EU decision making3. European Road Safety Observatory

1. Integrated project2. Challenges3. Three main areas

4. Macroscopic data5. In-depth data6. Data Application

1. Work Package 62. Work Package 7 – Data analysis and synthesis

1. Complex data structures in time2. Complex data structures in space

7. Project Implementation8. Conclusion

1. Extent and nature of casualty problem in EU

2001

Over 40,000 people killed 3.3 million people injured Costs exceeded €180 billion (i.e. twice the annual

budget of the EC; 2% of EU GDP)

1. Extent and nature of casualty problem in EU (cont.)

1st of May 2004

10 accession countries joined the EU Total population increased to over 450 million people Estimated number of road crashes is expected to

increase by 25% to over 50,000 each year

1. Extent and nature of casualty problem in EU (cont.)

EC Adopted a target of reducing fatalities by 50% Identified several areas where it could make a direct

contribution within the constraints of subsidiarity

Road Safety Action Program (RSAP) Reaffirmed the target Provided further detail about actions it planned to

introduce

2. Background to EU decision making

RSAP

• Structural deficit at EU level of harmonized data• More detailed and systematic information needed

– Inability to compare crashes between countries– Prioritization of countermeasures more difficult– Lack of detailed feedback on the effectiveness of

countermeasures

2. Background to EU decision making (cont.)

CARE database

• Assembles the national accident data from Member States

• Was the most developed

IRTAD database

• Does provide harmonized fatal accident data for many EU countries

• But only at aggregate level

2. Background to EU decision making (cont.)

Fifth Framework Program research projects

• e.g. RISER, CHILD, ECBOS• Generally focused in on specific research issues• Were only available within the respective projects

Conclusion• Significant data gaps existed that prevented inter-

country comparisons, particularly for the 10 new Member States and at in-depth level

2. Background to EU decision making (cont.)

Level Availability at

EU level Functions

Base Level CARE Priorities Trends Progress to targets

Intermediate level

No

Identification of blame Reconstruction of pre-crash events

In-Depth level

Pendant for injury causation Nothing for accident causation

Accident causation Injury causation Basic research Engineering feedback Technical standards

Specialist Various research studies

Specific research questions

No single database can meet all needs

Inc r

eas i

ng n

umbe

rsIncreasing detail

3. European Road Safety Observatory

Integrated Project SafetyNet

EC decided to initiate the development of the Road Safety Observatory

By funding the IP SafetyNet under the Sixth Framework Program

3. European Road Safety Observatory (cont.)

Integrated project SafetyNet (cont.)

Project lasts over 4 years Plans to build the basic structure as well as gathering

new data at several levels Observatory will eventually cover all 25 member states

and further additional countries outside EU (e.g. Switzerland)

3. European Road Safety Observatory (cont.)

Policy Makers(National

Administrations)

SafetyNet IP Steering Committee

Consultation with Data Users

WP 1CARE

WP 2Risk-

Exposure data

WP 3Safety

Performance Indicators

Macroscopic data

WP 4Independent

accident investigation recommend-

ations

WP 5In-depth Accident and Injury Causation databank

WP 6EU Safety Information

system

WP 7Data

analysis and

synthesis

In-depth data Data application

3. European Road Safety Observatory (cont.)

Challenges

Creation of a common independent gateway

For the benefit of road safety practioners and the

general public

New tools for gathering and analyzing EU road safety

data

3. European Road Safety Observatory (cont.)

Challenges

To provide for the first time to the EC the necessary

scientific support

Exchange of experience and stimulus from the multi-

country comparisons

3. European Road Safety Observatory (cont.)

Three main areas

Macroscopic data

In-depth data

Data application

4. Macroscopic data

Three work packages

To develop new harmonized methods for gathering and processing accident information

Will not gather data themselves but will work in close collaboration with Member States

Data will be gathered at national level and supplied to the project (via EU CARE and Safety Performance Indicators Working Groups)

4. Macroscopic data (cont.)

WP 1 CARE (Leader – George Yannis, National Technical University of Athens, Greece)

What is CARE? CARE is the compilation of national

accident databases for EU member states (http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/home/care/index_en.htm)

Objectives Extend CARE to 10 new member states

+ Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Switzerland

Support to Member States Estimate underreporting and non-fatal

totals

4. Macroscopic data (cont.)

WP 2 Risk/Exposure Data (Leader – Philippe Lejeune, Centre d'Etudes Technique de l'Equipement du Sud Ouest, France)

What is Risk/Exposure Data? RED involves measuring the exposure to specific conditions to

allow calculations of risk between member states e.g. are autobahns safer than autoroutes

Objectives Develop new structure to gather exposure data from member

states Link data to CARE and apply at EU level Support to Member States

4. Macroscopic data (cont.)

WP 3 Safety Performance Indicators (Leader – Paul Weseman, SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, Netherlands)

What are Safety Performance Indicators?

SPIs are measures of the traffic system that are directly related to accidents. Eg travel speeds, alcohol use or seat belt use

Objectives Identify a suitable common

format Gather data from member

States Bring together in database

5. In-depth data

WP 4 Independent Accident Investigation Recommendations (Leader – Gilles Vallet, Institut National de Recherche sur les Transports et leur Sécurité, France)

Objectives Methods to determine independence of accident data Specification of institutional and legal arrangements for

EU-wide accident data gathering

Outcomes Recommendations and protocols for independent

accident investigation

5. In-depth data (cont.)WP 5 In-depth Accident Causation Databank (Leader – Pete

Thomas (IP-coordinator) and Andrew Morris, Vehicle Safety Research Centre, UK)

What is in-depth data? In-depth crash investigations

involve a detailed analysis of each crash to identify the causal factors

Objectives Develop new fatal accident

database with 1000 cases Develop new accident

causation database with 1000 cases concentrating on infrastructure safety and eSafety

6. Data application

WP 6 EU Road Safety Information System (Leader – Paul Weseman, SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, Netherlands)

Objectives

Develop new information gateway for all SafetyNet data

Include other road safety related information

Outcome

Broad ranging accident data website to be handed over to EC for public access

6. Data application (cont.)

WP 7 Data Analysis and Synthesis (Leader – Ward Vanlaar, Institut Belge pour la Sécurité Routière, Belgium)

Objectives To demonstrate the added value of analytic outcomes based on

co-ordinated data sources Conduct linked analyses of SafetyNet data Develop methods for time-series analysis and evaluation of

clustering effectsOutcome

Recommendations for further analysis of EU level accident data

6. Data application (cont.)

WP 7 Data Analysis and Synthesis (Leader – Ward Vanlaar, Institut Belge pour la Sécurité Routière, Belgium)

Two angles

Complex data structures in time: via time-series analysis

Complex data structures in space: via multilevel analysis

7. Project Implementation

• Official start of the IP: May 1st 2004• Partnership: 22 partners; 18 countries• Project Steering Group:

Vehicle Safety Research Centre, Loughborough University, UK (Coordinator)National Technical University of Athens, GreeceCentre d'Etudes Technique de l'Equipement du Sud Ouest, FranceSWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, NetherlandsInstitut National de Recherche sur les Transports et leur Sécurité, FranceInstitut Belge pour la Sécurité Routière, Belgium

7. Project Implementation (cont.)

Partners: Közlekedéstudományi Intézet Rt,

Hungary Kuratorium für Schutz und

Sicherheit, Austria Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia

Civil, Portugal Medical University of Hanover,

Germany Road Directorate - Ministry of

Transport - Denmark Swedish National Roads

Administration, Sweden Swiss Council for Accident

Prevention, Switzerland Technion - Israel Institute of

Technology, Israel TNO, Netherlands TRL Limited, UK

•Agència de Salut Pública de Barcelona, Spain•Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen, Germany•Centrum dopravního výzkumu, Czech Republic•Chalmers University, Sweden•University of Rome, Italy•Finnish Motor Insurers' Centre, Finland•Institute of Transport Economics, Norway

7. Project Implementation (cont.)

No isolation:

• Key groups are EU and national level policymakers• EC working groups on CARE and SPIs• EC 6FP projects in infrastructure and eSafety• Pendant, Rosebud, EuroNCAP, ASTERYX, SARTRE 3,

IMMORTAL, etc.

8. Conclusion

• SafetyNet is an ambitious project• For the first time it brings a broad ranging, co-ordinated

set of accident data together• When established it will become an EC core activity• Wide support to road safety policy, new resources for

infrastructure and eSafety