Loughborough University
Leicestershire, UK
LE11 3TU
+44 (0)1509 263171
Loughborough University

Loughborough University Institutional Repository

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/4371

Title: Building the European Road Safety Observatory. SafetyNet. Deliverable D3.7a Road safety performance indicators: country comparisons
Authors: Auerbach-Hafen, Kerstin
Riguelle, Francois
Eksler, Vojtech
Haddak, Mouloud
Hollo, Peter
Arsenio, Elisabete
Cardoso, Joao
Gomes, Sandra Vieira
Papadimitriou, Eleonora
Amelink, Maarten
Goldenbeld, Charles
Mathijssen, Rene
Louwerse, Robert
Morsink, Peter
Schoon, Chris
Van Gent, Alex
Houwing, Sjoerd
Vis, Martijn A.
Gitelman, Victoria
Hakkert, Shalom
Assum, Terje
Page, Terje
Rackliff, Lucy
Issue Date: 2006
Publisher: European Commission, Directorate-General Transport and Energy
Citation: AUERBACH-HAFEN, K. ... et al, 2006. Building the European Road Safety Observatory. SafetyNet. Deliverable D3.7a Road safety performance indicators: country comparisons
Abstract: This report compares the safety performance of 27 European countries – the25 EU member states, Norway and Switzerland. The comparison is done for seven road safety related areas: alcohol and drugs, speeds, protective systems, daytime running lights, vehicles (passive safety), roads, and trauma management, on basis of the theory presented in Hakkert, Gitelman and Vis1 (2007), using the data obtained from the collaborating countries (see Vis and Van Gent2 (2007). When indicator values are available but not comparable due to e.g. lack of data quality, this is explained. In general, comparing the countries' performances is difficult. The main reasons are the lack of data, suspicious quality of the data, or the incomparability of the (seemingly similar) data due to different circumstances of measurement. As an example of the latter, one might think of speed measurements for different road types in different countries, or on similar road types with completely different characteristics. In a number of cases, the choice for a specific performance indicator depends on the availability of data. This has, for example, been the case for the indicator for alcohol usage; while the optimal indicator would concern the usage rate of alcohol in the general driver population, the unavailability of data in a number of the (larger) country, has led to a more indirect indictor. Details about the development of the safety performance indicators can be found in Hakkert, Gitelman and Vis (2007). In spite of all considerations and limitations, we are able to present a great number of comparisons in this report, or to present the figures that can form the basis for future comparisons. Reliable comparisons are made for the areas daytime running lights, protective systems, vehicles (passive safety), and trauma management. Only limited comparisons are made for the areas speeds and roads. Due to great differences in data quality between the different countries, comparisons in the area alcohol and drugs is not possible. The results for that area are presented for information only and will form the basis for future study.
Description: This is a report
Version: Published
URI: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/4371
Appears in Collections:Official Reports (Design School)

Files associated with this item:

File Description SizeFormat
AR2577 D3 7A Road safety performance.pdf407.11 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


SFX Query

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.