TNSL16‐ Lecture 2 2014‐01‐31

2014‐01‐31
TNSL16‐ Lecture 2
•
•
•
•
•
How to measure and compare traffic safety
Traffic safety problems
Theories and models in traffic safety
National Road Safety Programme (NRSP)
Accessibility versus Mobility
HOW TO MEASURE AND COMPARE ROAD SAFETY PROBLEM?
Traffic Safety Measurements
• Objective safety – measured with accidents rates
• Perceived/subjective safety – felt by road users
– e.g. The SARTRE - EU Project (Social Attitudes
to Road Traffic Risk in Europe).
• Nominal safety – measured in comparison to the
design and operational safety standards of the
products (roads, vehicles, equipment, etc) e.g.
RAP (Road Assessment Program), NCAP (New
Car Assessment Program).
3
1
2014‐01‐31
Main objective measurments
• Traffic Risk in terms of fatalities per
number of vehicles or number of kilometer
driven
• Personal Risk in terms of fatalities per
population
Risk per unit of exposure
Better Enforcement
and Engineering
Education
ITS
Developing
Countries
Etc..
Developed Countries
International comparison
2
2014‐01‐31
DIFFICULTY OF INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON OF ACCIDENTS DATA
Road Traffic Accident Database
Fatal Accidents
Fatality
Serious Injury Accidents
Serious Injury victim
Slight Injury Accidents
Slight Injury victim
Victim dies within 30 days of accident
Victim given at least 7 days of medical
leave
Victim given at 3 days medical leave
No injury Accidents
No one suffers any injury
CASUALTY-RELATED
ACCIDENT-RELATED
Sources of road accidents data
•
•
•
•
•
Police accident data
Hospital data
Insurance data
Vehicle companies
Special surveys
Reporting rate level in a country
A = number of casulaties reported to the police only
B = number of casulaties reported to the police and hospitals
C = number of casulaties reported to the hospital only
m
Missing
Police
A
Both
B
Hospital
Reporting level=
(A+B)/(A+B+C)
C
Elvik and Truls (2004)
3
2014‐01‐31
Reporting rate level in a country (meta‐analysis)
Elvik and Truls (2004)
R El ik (H
db
k)
Causulaty under reporting
Reported and estimated casualties in
ASEAN countries (2003-2004)
4
2014‐01‐31
Recommendations for European average correction factors for unreported road accidents.
Bickel et al 2006
Collection of data- accident form
The information sent to the national database
STRADA Overview
National Accident Database
http://www.strada.se
5
2014‐01‐31
Accident description
Traffic Safety Databases
• Transportstyrelsen‐ STRADA – Informationssystem för olyckor och skador i trafiken
• Trafikverket
• Statistiska centralbyrån (årsbok), or SIKA
• http://trafa.se/ trafik analys
• OR EU Traffic Saftey Databases:
– IRTAD – CARE – Eurostat (for many transport indicators)
EU Road Safety Knoweldge database‐ SafetyNet (recommended to
read, Weblink added to course website!)
WHAT ARE THE MAIN ROAD
SAFETY RISKS AND PROBLEMS?
6
2014‐01‐31
Road Safety Main Components
Road
Driver
Vehicle
Need a look under the water
Obvious problems: Speeding, Alcohol
and driving, usage of seatbelts and
helmets, rescue services, poor road
safety data, VRUs, etc.
Problems need deeper analysis:
Traffic legislations, enforcement,
vehicle and road inspection,
education, etc.
Hidden problems: Traffic
management system is slow
or non-existent, national
road safety programme, lack
of know-how, etc.
7
2014‐01‐31
Shared Factors in Road Accidents
2 out of 3 accidents happen in urban roads
2 out 3 fatalities in urban roads are VRUs
Fatalaties
Urban roads
Accidents
70%
30%
Rural roads
70%
30%
Pedestrian fatality Risk as function of the impact speed
8
2014‐01‐31
Alcohol Risk of crash involvement
• About 20% of all road fatalities in Europe are
alcohol related whereas about only 1% of all
kilometres driven in Europe are driven by
drivers with 0.5 g/l alcohol in their blood or
more.
Age and driving experience
9
2014‐01‐31
Accident peaks
Age
Parents
Pedestrians
Cyclists
Mopeds
Mainly knowledge and skills
28
People Aged 18‐25 Killed in Road Crashes, By Hour and Day of the Week EU 15, 2002
Car drivers fatalities by age and gender
10
2014‐01‐31
Speeding problem
Why is the speed so dangerous?
• A high driving speed leads to:
– a high collision speed (energy) and high
severity. E = 0,5*m*v2
– Longer stopping distance
– Less reaction time for driver or other road users
– Fuel consumption and exhaust increase
– Noise increases
Speed and Risk of involvement in a casualty crash
11
2014‐01‐31
How to understand the danger of high speeds?
A head-on collision in 90 km/h corresponds to a free fall of 25 m
and if the speeds are 110 km/tim a free fall of 43 m.
How to understand the danger of high speeds?
• A pedestrian hit by a car
travelling 50 km/h can be
compared to a free fall of 10
meters
• If the speed of the car is 30
km/h it corresponds to a free
fall of 3 meters
The concept of “safe speed” in Sweden
36
12
2014‐01‐31
Road user behaviour in DCs‐ Examples
Studies showed that:
• 12 and 41 % of the drivers in selected DCs
violated a red light. The corresponding figure
in Sweden is 0.1-0.2%.
• Road markings and signing may be less
effective in some DCs than in the developed
countries because of differences in driver
education and behavior.
• Traffic calming measures have almost the
same effecteivnes in many countries.
Vehicle and road safety in developing countries
Road User Behaviour
13
2014‐01‐31
Road Safety Countermeasures (the 3Es)
Engineering
Enforcement
Education
Road Safety performance
5 star driving
5 star cars
5 star roads
100
Vision/Target
80
Country/City D
40-50
Best class in
Performance
road safety
gap
Country/City C
Average
Country/City B
Country/City A
0
Time
Road Safety
Target
Action plan
and strategic
direction
Actual road safety
performance in a country
14
2014‐01‐31
VISION ZERO : A SAFE TRAFFIC CONCEPT
• History: On October 9, 1997 the "Vision Zero" was passed by a large majority in the Swedish Parliament. • Goal: “The long term goal is that no‐one shall be killed or seriously injured within the Swedish road transport system”.
Philosophy behind:”
– Care of human life and health is considered to be more important than anything else
– Designers/Planners of traffic system are responsible for design, operation and use, and thus safety of system
– Users are responsible for following the rules of use
– System has to be understandable
– If user fails and injuries occur, system designers and planners must take necessary steps to reduce injury
– All stakeholders will share responsibility
Main stages of National Road Safety Action Plan
Diagnosing the road accident problem
Setting up targets and visions
Setting up priorities and measures
Institutional coordination and responsibilities
Implementation
Monitoring and evaluation
NRSP can tell if traffic safety development is going into the
right direction in the country or not!
Department Programs
National Road Safety Target
Sub-target
Department Programs
Successful NRSP needs authorities and road users to
speak the same language, to understand each other, and to
work together.
15
2014‐01‐31
Why is monitoring important?
• Introduction of blood alcohol law in UK
Source: M.J. Koomstra; Police enforcement: A European evaluation; Leidschendam, 1993
Areas with large safety potential in Sweden:
• Speed: 57% of traffic volume above speed limits in 2004
(VV Konsult, 2004).
• Safety belts: About 6% of car drivers do not wear safety
belt (VTI, 2010)
– In-depth studies show: about 34% are unbelted in
fatal accidents
• Drink driving: In-depth studies show: 16% of killed
drivers had a BAC level over 0.2%.
• …..
”Long-term-vision” for rural
roads
• 70 km/h: default speed limit
• 80 km/h: milled rumble strips in middle
of road
• 90 km/h: 2+1 roads with median milled
rumble strips
• 100 km/h: 2+1 roads with median
barrier
• 110 km/h: motorways
• 120 km/h: motorways with high
standard and low traffic flow
16
2014‐01‐31
Road safety is a shared responsibility between
GOVERNMENT & LEGISLATIVE BODIES
USERS / CITIZENS
MEDIA
NRSP
INDUSTRY
PROFESSIONALS
POLICE
NGOs, SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS
A shared responsibility towards:
Safer people
e-Safety
ITS
Enforcement
Organisation
and Managment
Safer roads
Safer vehicles
Data collection
Socio-economic
factors
Traffic safety development in France, 1970‐
2009
WHO
17
2014‐01‐31
THEORIES AND MODELS IN TRAFFIC
SAFETY
A typical accident theory
• A cleaner has a hole in his bucket.
• As a result he spills water onto the floor.
• A second employee is rushing and fails to
see the water spot.
• As a result he slips and bangs his head on
the floor.
Domino Theory
1932 First Scientific Approach to Accident/Prevention ‐ H.W. Heinrich
18
2014‐01‐31
Risk Homeostasis Theory (Risk Compensation)
• Traffic System has their own target risk
• Drivers reduce (compensate) risk with more
cautious behavior if
Perceived Risk > Target Risk
• They change behavior towards more dangerous if
Perceived Risk < Target Risk
Some people are risk takers and
some people are risk avoiders.
Target Risk
Accepted Risk
Perceived Risk
Why do People Engage in Risky Behavior
(Accepted Risk) in Traffic
1. They don’t perceive the risk well
2. They do perceive the risk, but also perceive
some benefit from taking the risk e.g. time,
money, look good, personal satisfaction. etc.
Risk Compensation:
• The supported examples:
– The average speed of people wearing seat belts was
higher than those who did not
– In a Munich study, half a fleet of taxicabs were
equipped with anti-lock brakes (ABS), while the other
half had conventional brake systems. The crash rate
was the same for both types of cab, and the study
concluded that drivers of ABS-equipped cabs took
more risks.
19
2014‐01‐31
Perceived and Accepted Risks
Sweden changed to driving on the right on 1967. It
resulted in 17% less road deaths in the first year
Perceived risk , Accepted risk ,
=> Risk-taking behavior 
After introducing free-market economy in Poland in late
1980s, the crash rates increased by 30 percent.
Accepted risk , perceived risk 
=> Risk-taking behavior 
Risk Compensation
• The theory has generated criticism. Some critics say that the theory is not contradicted with car crash fatality rates. These rates have fallen after the introduction of engineering measures e.g. seat belt laws.
Haddon’s Matrix
Pre‐Crash
Travelers
Vehicle
Road +
Environment
Crash
Attitudes
Driver Skills
Alcohol Use
Enforcement
Education
Lighting
Vehicle Size
Braking
Vehicle Weight
Post‐Crash
Seat Belts Use Traveler’s Age
Helmets Use
Traveler’s Health
First Aid Training
Fuel System Fire risk
Vehicle Design
Road Design
Weather
Speed limit
Road Maintenance
Lighting
Pedestrian facilities
Roadside Hazards
Fixed Objects
Rescue Response
Availability of Medical Services
Congestion
20
2014‐01‐31
Who or what is to blame?
On a dark rainy night on Saturday a young driver drove his poor‐
maintained car with friends, after party, were trying to return home. The car went out of a badly‐designed curve of a rural road and hit a tree severely directly near the road which was result in serious injuries. Although car occupants used seatbelts properly, the car was driven fast. The traffic police explained the accident due to speeding under alcohol influence. As an independent traffic safety observer, you are not entirely convinced and will use e.g. Haddon’s Matrix to categories the causes.
Class Discussion
The Size of Road Safety Problem
= Exposure*Risk*Consequence
Accident Risk (A/E)
Exposure (E)
Injury Risk (I/A) “Consequences”
(I) = E*A/E*I/A
Source: Rumar (1999)
The traffic safety situation - Annual number of
killed car drivers in different age groups in
Sweden 1992
Source: Nilsson (1999)
21
2014‐01‐31
Risk description using different exposure units,
person kilometres or hours in traffic, for road
users, Sweden 1992
Source: Nilsson (1999)
Mobility & Accessibility
• Mobility refers to the movement of people and goods between different sites
– If a transport mode could move people and
goods very fast then that mode provides very
high mobility
• Accessibility refers to the ability to reach desired
destinations (goods, services, activities, etc)
– If a transport mode provides connection to large
number of residences, commercial places and
industrial places then it provides very high
accessibility
Road
Functions
Mobility
Accessibility
22
2014‐01‐31
Mobility & Accessibility
Expressways
Multilane Highways
Mobility
State Highways
Major District Roads
Other District Roads
Village Roads
Access
Mobility & Accessibility
Mode choice
Variables determine mode choice
• Private Transport: Cars
• Collective Transport:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
–
–
–
–
–
Bus
Light Rail
Rapid Transit
Taxi
CarSharing
• Non Motorized Modes
– Walking
– Biking
Cost
Availability and Frequency
Waiting Time
“Value‐of‐Time”‐ average
Travel time
Comfort Safety
Security
Accessibility to service
Mobility
Example (1) ‐ The ICA model
Zone 3
Zone 2
Zone 1
Hemköp
* * *
Zone 4
No ICA
* *
Zone 5
*
How can I get better accessibility to ICA/IKEA/…? • To stay in zones closer to one
• ICA could build one near my place
• The transport system could improve accessibility
• …. 23
2014‐01‐31
ICA Model
Accessibility from Zone i to ICA
Ai = ∑ # of ICA in Zone j j=1,5 t tij
If there is no ICA in Zone 4, the mobility (fast connection) between Zone 3 and Zone 4 is not important (with respect to
the trip purpose in reaching ICA). Example (2)
• If a school experienced traffic or parking
congestion problems. – Mobility‐based analysis would conclude that roads and parking facilities could be expanded, or that students could
travel by bus, rather than drive alone. – Accessibility‐based analysis would look to the location of
the school and residential areas in where the distance that
children must travel to school is short enough to allow
more walking and cycling. 24