Suchergebnisse

The Decision Support System (DSS) is one of the key objectives of the European co-funded research project SafetyCube in order to better support evidence-based policy making. Results will be assembled in the form of a DSS that will present for each suggested road safety measure: details of risk factor tackled, measure, best estimate of casualty reduction effectiveness, cost-benefit evaluation and analytic background. The development of the DSS presents a great potential to further support decision making at local, regional, national and international level, aiming to fill in the current gap of comparable measures effectiveness evaluation. In order to provide policy-makers and industry with comprehensive and well-structured information about measures, it is essential that a systems approach is used to ensure the links between risk factors and all relevant safety measures are made fully visible. The DSS is intended to become a major source of information for industry, policy-makers and the wider road safety community.

This paper is an updated version of the paper presented at the TRA2014 Transport Research Arena 2014: Transport Solutions: from Research to Deployment - Innovate Mobility, Mobilise Innovation! 14th-17th April 2014, Paris. This book chapter is in closed access. ; This chapter presents the analysis of a road safety management framework in European countries and the identification of "good practice" for the optimization of road safety management processes, carried out within the DaCoTA research project. It then discusses the road safety management investigation model, and describes the data collection and handling procedures. Effective organization of road safety management is assumed to be one of the conditions for obtaining good road safety results at the country level. Country profiles of the road safety management systems in the 14 European countries were analyzed and compared to the reference "good practice" system. Road safety visions and targets appear to be strongly influenced by either European Union proposals or road safety "leader" countries in Europe. Almost all European countries have road safety strategies and programs, with the majority boasting the ambitious EU targets.

TRA 2014 - Transport Research Arena : 5th Conference: Transport Solutions from Research to Deployment, PARIS, FRANCE, 14-/04/2014 - 17/04/2014 ; The objective of this paper is the analysis of road safety management in European countries and the identification of 'good practice'. A road safety management investigation model was created, based on several 'good practice' criteria. Road safety management systems have been thoroughly investigated in 14 European countries on 2010, by means of interviews with both governmental representatives and independent experts, who filled in an extensive questionnaire. A reliable and accurate picture ('profile') was created for each country, allowing country comparisons. Then, statistical methods were used to make rankings of countries, and analyse the relationship between road safety management and road safety performance. The results of the analyses suggest that it is not possible to identify one single 'good practice'. Nevertheless, there were several elements that emerged as 'good practice' criteria. On the basis of the results, recommendations are proposed at national and European level.

TRA 2014 - Transport Research Arena : 5th Conference: Transport Solutions from Research to Deployment, PARIS, FRANCE, 14-/04/2014 - 17/04/2014 ; The objective of this paper is the analysis of road safety management in European countries and the identification of 'good practice'. A road safety management investigation model was created, based on several 'good practice' criteria. Road safety management systems have been thoroughly investigated in 14 European countries on 2010, by means of interviews with both governmental representatives and independent experts, who filled in an extensive questionnaire. A reliable and accurate picture ('profile') was created for each country, allowing country comparisons. Then, statistical methods were used to make rankings of countries, and analyse the relationship between road safety management and road safety performance. The results of the analyses suggest that it is not possible to identify one single 'good practice'. Nevertheless, there were several elements that emerged as 'good practice' criteria. On the basis of the results, recommendations are proposed at national and European level.

TRA 2014 - Transport Research Arena : 5th Conference: Transport Solutions from Research to Deployment, PARIS, FRANCE, 14-/04/2014 - 17/04/2014 ; The objective of this paper is the analysis of road safety management in European countries and the identification of 'good practice'. A road safety management investigation model was created, based on several 'good practice' criteria. Road safety management systems have been thoroughly investigated in 14 European countries on 2010, by means of interviews with both governmental representatives and independent experts, who filled in an extensive questionnaire. A reliable and accurate picture ('profile') was created for each country, allowing country comparisons. Then, statistical methods were used to make rankings of countries, and analyse the relationship between road safety management and road safety performance. The results of the analyses suggest that it is not possible to identify one single 'good practice'. Nevertheless, there were several elements that emerged as 'good practice' criteria. On the basis of the results, recommendations are proposed at national and European level.

TRA 2014 - Transport Research Arena : 5th Conference: Transport Solutions from Research to Deployment, PARIS, FRANCE, 14-/04/2014 - 17/04/2014 ; The objective of this paper is the analysis of road safety management in European countries and the identification of 'good practice'. A road safety management investigation model was created, based on several 'good practice' criteria. Road safety management systems have been thoroughly investigated in 14 European countries on 2010, by means of interviews with both governmental representatives and independent experts, who filled in an extensive questionnaire. A reliable and accurate picture ('profile') was created for each country, allowing country comparisons. Then, statistical methods were used to make rankings of countries, and analyse the relationship between road safety management and road safety performance. The results of the analyses suggest that it is not possible to identify one single 'good practice'. Nevertheless, there were several elements that emerged as 'good practice' criteria. On the basis of the results, recommendations are proposed at national and European level.

The aim of the DaCoTA Work Package 1 is to investigate road safety policy-making and management processes in Europe. In the Deliverables released previously, the Work Package 1 assessed the experts' needs in terms of road safety knowledge, data and decision support tools (Deliverable 1.1/4.1), as well as the road safety stakeholders' views (Deliverable 1.3). These two Deliverables contain information on the present and future needs and the actual availability of various types of road safety data and knowledge, which the experts and the stakeholders might find useful for their work. As for the Deliverable 1.2 at hand; it presents the theoretical background for the Work Package 1 'investigation model', as well as the model itself and the questionnaire derived from it. The 'investigation model' was designed for the study of the different aspects of actual road safety policy-making and management processes in Europe. Its objective is to allow describing concrete road safety policy-making and management practices. Therefore, it is not a 'good practice' model in the normative sense. Rather, it aims at discovering good practices that exist, whether they conform to a normative 'good practice' model designed by experts or not. In designing the investigation model, the group relied on an extensive review of recent literature. Some of the references the group reviewed contain only a small number of case studies. A number of these are limited to well performing developed countries and nevertheless prescribe the implementation of similar structures for road safety decision-making and management in quite different situations and contexts. A few other references, however, advocate a more analytical approach, backing their claim with case studies from a more varied set of countries. In any case, the group decided to draw on elements from all available models, thus ensuring that while the investigation model is now used to study road safety policymaking and management processes in European countries, its use is by no means ...

The aim of the DaCoTA Work Package 1 is to investigate road safety policy-making and management processes in Europe. In the Deliverables released previously, the Work Package 1 assessed the experts' needs in terms of road safety knowledge, data and decision support tools (Deliverable 1.1/4.1), as well as the road safety stakeholders' views (Deliverable 1.3). These two Deliverables contain information on the present and future needs and the actual availability of various types of road safety data and knowledge, which the experts and the stakeholders might find useful for their work. As for the Deliverable 1.2 at hand; it presents the theoretical background for the Work Package 1 'investigation model', as well as the model itself and the questionnaire derived from it. The 'investigation model' was designed for the study of the different aspects of actual road safety policy-making and management processes in Europe. Its objective is to allow describing concrete road safety policy-making and management practices. Therefore, it is not a 'good practice' model in the normative sense. Rather, it aims at discovering good practices that exist, whether they conform to a normative 'good practice' model designed by experts or not. In designing the investigation model, the group relied on an extensive review of recent literature. Some of the references the group reviewed contain only a small number of case studies. A number of these are limited to well performing developed countries and nevertheless prescribe the implementation of similar structures for road safety decision-making and management in quite different situations and contexts. A few other references, however, advocate a more analytical approach, backing their claim with case studies from a more varied set of countries. In any case, the group decided to draw on elements from all available models, thus ensuring that while the investigation model is now used to study road safety policymaking and management processes in European countries, its use is by no means ...

The aim of the DaCoTA Work Package 1 is to investigate road safety policy-making and management processes in Europe. In the Deliverables released previously, the Work Package 1 assessed the experts' needs in terms of road safety knowledge, data and decision support tools (Deliverable 1.1/4.1), as well as the road safety stakeholders' views (Deliverable 1.3). These two Deliverables contain information on the present and future needs and the actual availability of various types of road safety data and knowledge, which the experts and the stakeholders might find useful for their work. As for the Deliverable 1.2 at hand; it presents the theoretical background for the Work Package 1 'investigation model', as well as the model itself and the questionnaire derived from it. The 'investigation model' was designed for the study of the different aspects of actual road safety policy-making and management processes in Europe. Its objective is to allow describing concrete road safety policy-making and management practices. Therefore, it is not a 'good practice' model in the normative sense. Rather, it aims at discovering good practices that exist, whether they conform to a normative 'good practice' model designed by experts or not. In designing the investigation model, the group relied on an extensive review of recent literature. Some of the references the group reviewed contain only a small number of case studies. A number of these are limited to well performing developed countries and nevertheless prescribe the implementation of similar structures for road safety decision-making and management in quite different situations and contexts. A few other references, however, advocate a more analytical approach, backing their claim with case studies from a more varied set of countries. In any case, the group decided to draw on elements from all available models, thus ensuring that while the investigation model is now used to study road safety policymaking and management processes in European countries, its use is by no means ...

The aim of the DaCoTA Work Package 1 is to investigate road safety policy-making and management processes in Europe. In the Deliverables released previously, the Work Package 1 assessed the experts' needs in terms of road safety knowledge, data and decision support tools (Deliverable 1.1/4.1), as well as the road safety stakeholders' views (Deliverable 1.3). These two Deliverables contain information on the present and future needs and the actual availability of various types of road safety data and knowledge, which the experts and the stakeholders might find useful for their work. As for the Deliverable 1.2 at hand; it presents the theoretical background for the Work Package 1 'investigation model', as well as the model itself and the questionnaire derived from it. The 'investigation model' was designed for the study of the different aspects of actual road safety policy-making and management processes in Europe. Its objective is to allow describing concrete road safety policy-making and management practices. Therefore, it is not a 'good practice' model in the normative sense. Rather, it aims at discovering good practices that exist, whether they conform to a normative 'good practice' model designed by experts or not. In designing the investigation model, the group relied on an extensive review of recent literature. Some of the references the group reviewed contain only a small number of case studies. A number of these are limited to well performing developed countries and nevertheless prescribe the implementation of similar structures for road safety decision-making and management in quite different situations and contexts. A few other references, however, advocate a more analytical approach, backing their claim with case studies from a more varied set of countries. In any case, the group decided to draw on elements from all available models, thus ensuring that while the investigation model is now used to study road safety policymaking and management processes in European countries, its use is by no means ...

Within the framework of DaCoTA WP1, an Experts Panel was created and a consultation was launched for the preliminary assessment of knowledge, data and analysis needs within road safety management. The objective of the consultation of this Experts Panel was the assessment of current needs for evidence-based road safety decision making in the European countries, to be used also by other DaCoTA activities. In particular, it was intended to identify specific needs for knowledge, data and tools, which will be taken into account for the development of a data warehouse (DaCoTA WP3) and for the creation of useful and relevant road safety decision support tools (DaCoTA WP4). Moreover, this preliminary consultation of the Experts Panel serves as a first step towards the full assessment of current practices and future needs of knowledge-based road safety management, which will be carried out later on within DaCoTA WP1 by means of a broader consultation of stakeholders. The members of the Experts Panel included members of the CARE National Experts group of the European Commission, as well as persons within the national road safety administration or scientific community of each country suggested by the National Experts. The Panel was complemented with additional persons suggested by the DaCoTA partners. The Panel eventually covers 20 EU Member States and 3 other European countries with different histories and experiences of RS management. The Experts have in-depth knowledge of road safety management processes and needs in their country, being either directly involved in decision making, or working closely with decision makers as advisors. Two parallel consultation methods were implemented; the first concerned semi-directive interviews carried out by members of the DaCoTA WP1 partners with members of the Panel mainly from their own countries, and the second concerned a request for written contributions in case of language or time constraints. Particular emphasis was given to the open nature of the questions, both within the ...

Within the framework of DaCoTA WP1, an Experts Panel was created and a consultation was launched for the preliminary assessment of knowledge, data and analysis needs within road safety management. The objective of the consultation of this Experts Panel was the assessment of current needs for evidence-based road safety decision making in the European countries, to be used also by other DaCoTA activities. In particular, it was intended to identify specific needs for knowledge, data and tools, which will be taken into account for the development of a data warehouse (DaCoTA WP3) and for the creation of useful and relevant road safety decision support tools (DaCoTA WP4). Moreover, this preliminary consultation of the Experts Panel serves as a first step towards the full assessment of current practices and future needs of knowledge-based road safety management, which will be carried out later on within DaCoTA WP1 by means of a broader consultation of stakeholders. The members of the Experts Panel included members of the CARE National Experts group of the European Commission, as well as persons within the national road safety administration or scientific community of each country suggested by the National Experts. The Panel was complemented with additional persons suggested by the DaCoTA partners. The Panel eventually covers 20 EU Member States and 3 other European countries with different histories and experiences of RS management. The Experts have in-depth knowledge of road safety management processes and needs in their country, being either directly involved in decision making, or working closely with decision makers as advisors. Two parallel consultation methods were implemented; the first concerned semi-directive interviews carried out by members of the DaCoTA WP1 partners with members of the Panel mainly from their own countries, and the second concerned a request for written contributions in case of language or time constraints. Particular emphasis was given to the open nature of the questions, both within the interviews and the written contributions, allowing the experts to describe their own experiences, views and messages and to put emphasis on the issues they consider themselves important, without being "directed" by a detailed questionnaire to specific judgments. The consultation provided a wealth of information on all aspects of road safety management in the European countries. A synthesis of the results of this open consultation was carried out by means of a predefined matrix. In this matrix, the basic road safety management tasks were decomposed into their particular components, and were then cross-tabulated with distinct categories of needs (knowledge needs, data needs, methodological needs, tools needs etc.), allowing the linking of specific aspects of road safety policy making to specific benefits from using the necessary knowledge, data, methods and tools. The matrix allowed for a classification of the opinions provided by the experts in the written contributions as well as in the interviews. Overall, the consultation of the Experts Panel provided valuable information about the current practices and future needs and priorities for evidence-based road safety management in Europe. It was stressed that only through the establishment of appropriate structures and procedures can evidence-based road safety management be achieved. Specific recommendations on such structures and procedures include the institutional arrangements for road safety management to be carried out centrally (at national level) by a single dedicated organization, the establishment of links and processes for smooth and efficient interaction between national and local road safety policies, and the introduction of compulsory consideration of scientific evidence for each road safety decision. Several useful remarks and recommendations on the various road safety management tasks, from fact-finding and assessment of problems to the development of road safety strategies and programmes, and from the planning and implementation of these programmes to the monitoring and evaluation of their effectiveness, were also derived from this preliminary consultation. First of all, the need for setting ambitious yet realistic targets for the improvement of road safety was confirmed. As regards the development of road safety programmes and the selection of measures, a need for methodological advances was identified, including the improvement of cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses, so that they can serve both for setting priorities and for assessing the combined effects of road safety measures. Moreover, the creation of handbooks and databases with accumulated international experience on these questions was proposed, with emphasis on the country-specific conditions necessary to take into account in order to reach the maximum benefit of each measure. With respect to the planning and implementation of road safety programmes and measures, the need to gather and harmonise the available information from the international experience of measures implementation was frequently expressed. In particular, the information and data on the procedures, the conditions, the time frame and the costs for implementing the measures need to be made available at European level. Furthermore, the monitoring and evaluation task is considered to be most essential, not only for assessing the effectiveness of road safety measures, but also for identifying needs for further improvement. Several methodological needs were also mentioned, including the need for standardized assessment tools (statistical models, analysis techniques etc.), that will allow for the identification of the reasons and mechanisms leading to the observed safety effect of the measures. Finally, a number of issues concerning the availability and quality of data for knowledge-based road safety management were outlined. They include the need to address the injury under-reporting problem at European level, the need for improved methods for determining accident locations by means of GIS technologies and tools, the need for improved exposure data, for increasingly reliable behavioural data and the need to promote the collection and use of in-depth accident investigation data. The Experts also stressed the need for road safety databases of different types (accident data, health data, exposure data etc.) to be linked and to be made more accessible. The synthesis of the results of the consultation may serve as a first overview of experiences with road safety management in the European countries. Furthermore, it may serve as an outline of expert opinions on the needs and priorities for knowledge, data and tools to support road safety management, as well as on the related needs for better processes and structures, allowing the integration of knowledge and decision support tools into policy making. It is noted that such a consultation was launched for the first time at European level. The main directions and priorities identified for knowledge-based road safety management are presented in detail in the present report. These can be useful not only for the collection (WP3) and analysis (WP4) of data and information intended to support road safety decision making, but they can also be used as a broader guide towards the improvement of road safety management processes and practices both by individual countries and at European Union level (WP1). Finally, the information gathered in this consultation is also relevant for further developments of the ERSO, given the many suggestions made concerning the type of information and tools that should be made available at a European level. ; RAPPORT DE CONTRAT

Safety CaUsation, Benefits and Efficiency (SafetyCube) is a European Commission supported Horizon 2020 project with the objective of developing an innovative road safety Decision Support System (DSS). The DSS will enable policy-makers and stakeholders to select and implement the most appropriate strategies, measures, and cost-effective approaches to reduce casualties of all road user types and all severities. This document is the second deliverable (4.2) of work package 4, which is dedicated to identifying and assessing road safety measures related to road users in terms of their effectiveness. The focus of deliverable 4.2 is on the identification and assessment of countermeasures and describes the corresponding operational procedure and outcomes. Measures which intend to increase road safety of all kind of road user groups have been considered. The following steps have been carried out: " Identification of human related road safety measures- creation of a taxonomy " Consultation of relevant stakeholders and outcomes of previous related projects for identification of most important human related measures " Systematic literature search and selection of relevant studies on identified key measures " Coding of evaluation studies " Analysis of key measures on basis of coded studies " Synopses of key measures. The core output of this task are synopses on road safety measures, which will also be available through the DSS. Within the synopses, each countermeasure (or group of measures) was analysed systematically on basis of scientific studies and is further assigned to one of four levels of effectiveness (marked with a colour code). Essential information of around 240 included studies was coded and will also be available in the database of the DSS. Furthermore, the synopses contain theoretical background on the measures and are prepared in different sections with different levels of detail for an academic as well as a non-academic audience. These sections can be read independently. It is important to note that ...