Vojtech EKSLER European Transport Safety Council (ETSC)

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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 Limited accountability measures and tools availability White Paper (2001) "European transport policy for 2010 : time to decide“ 3rd Road Safety Action Programme (2003) Sharing responsibility

8. 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

9. EU target 1st EU target triggered further road safety improvement particularly in Western Europe

10. 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…

11. Contribution of Member States (1) Five countries at sight of the target France and Luxembourg are almost there ETSC, 2009

12. 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

13. 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.

14. 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

15. 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 142 63 42 27 18 13 56 49 45

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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...

19. Thank you for your attention! vojtech.eksler@etsc.eu www.etsc.eu