7 research outputs found
Identifying and designing for the needs of older road users
The number of older road users is continuously increasing over time. Whilst much
research focuses on the likely impact on road safety, little work has been carried out
examining the impact on older people themselves of their declining ability to cope with
the road environment. Additionally, it is known that because of their increased frailty
older drivers are more at risk of sustaining a fatal or serious injury than younger roadusers.
Consequently older people often feel pressured by family members, health
practitioners or an increasing inability to deal with traffic conditions, into giving up driving
in favour of some other form of transport. However, the subsequent effect of this may
actually be to increase the risk exposure of older people. The aim of this study was to
use an accident-independent approach to collect detailed information on the interaction
between behaviour, perceived and actual risk and use of transport systems, using both
quantitative and qualitative techniques. A focus group and interviews were conducted
with older road-users to gain an initial insight into their experiences and perceptions of
safety whilst using the UK road infrastructure (including roads, pavements, cycle tracks,
pedestrian crossings etc.). Additionally, analysis was undertaken of UK exposure data
and casualty rates for older road users. The qualitative and quantitative data sources
were compared and contrasted. Older people felt at risk using the road system, and
many of these perceptions were upheld according to the statistical reports. Not all of the
issues raised by older road-users can be dealt with by improving design, but this study
presents a set of recommendations, which, if implemented would increase the safety of
all road users
Recommendations for establishing Pan European Transparent and Independent Road Accident Investigations
A set of recommendations for pan-European transparent and independent road accident investigations has been developed bythe SafetyNet project. The aim of these recommendations is to pave the way for future EU scale accident investigationactivities by setting out the necessary steps for establishing safety oriented road accident investigations in Member States.This can be seen as the start of the process for establishing road accident investigations throughout Europe which operateaccording to a common methodology.The recommendations propose a European Safety Oriented Road Accident Investigation Programme which sets out theprocedures that need to be put in place to investigate a sample of every day road accidents. They address four sets of issues;institutional addressing the characteristics of the programme; operational describing the conditions under which data iscollected; data storage and protection; and reports, countermeasures and the dissemination of data
Building the European Road Safety Observatory. SafetyNet. Deliverable D4.1 Bibliographical analysis
The notion of independence, as commonly used, is somewhat fuzzy. Some
public bodies, such as the Federal Reserve System in the United States or the
European Central Bank are independent. The Court of Justice of European
Communities is also an independent and autonomous institution. These
institutions have characteristics consistent with the formal definition of the
notion of independence. They are independent, in the limits of their missions,
because they are not subject to outside control. They are separate and do not
take instructions from other public bodies. They are financially autonomous and
the members of these institutions themselves are qualified and independent.
In relation to the field of research, the meaning of independence does not seem
excessively problematic. As for the central banks or the judicial institution, a
certain amount of independence –independence of the entity, that of the
researchers and of the research itself– would be vital for the impartiality and the
quality of the research process and its results. Therefore, an independent
accident investigation body should not be subject to outside control in the
pursuit of its mission. It should be separate from other bodies, public or private,
having financial or other interests in the results of its investigations. It should not
take instructions from other bodies or outside personalities. It should have
adequate control over the use of its investigation results. Finally, it should be
financially autonomous and its members be qualified and independent
themselves.
In the United States, the contrast between National Transportation Safety Board
and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is most interesting. While
NTSB has a solid reputation as an investigation body, wearing several hats puts
NHTSA in a somewhat uncomfortable position. In that particular case, the main
problem seems to arise from the ties it has to the manufacturers as the authority
responsible for the safety regulations and for the safety investigation.
In Europe there are several Directives or Regulations, as well as a White Paper,
a Communication from the Commission and a Work Programme, that concern
transport safety.
In the field of civil aviation, there are two specific European Directives:
1. Council Directive 94/56/EC of 21 November 1994 establishing the
fundamental principles governing the investigation of civil aviation
accidents and incidents; and
2. Directive 2003/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
13 June 2003 on occurrence reporting in civil aviation
The purpose of a safety (or accident) investigation, the authorised methods and
practices, as well as the definitions have been set by the International Civil
Aviation Organisation (ICAO) since the 1944 Chicago Convention. Accident
investigations in Europe and worldwide rely on the Chicago Convention Annex
Bibliographical Analysis
Project co-financed by the European Commission, Directorate-General Transport and Energy
sn_inrets_wp4_d4.1_14/11/2005_final Page 5
13. The first version of the Annex 13 was drafted in 1951; the current version
(9th) was agreed upon in 2001.
The European Directives’ focus is on the structural, financial and functional
independence of the investigating body. National laws adapting the international
and European requirements concerning the independence of the safety
investigation and of the investigation body exist in all studied Member States,
namely in Germany, France, Italy, Finland and United Kingdom. All these
Member States have an independent civil aviation accident investigation body.
In the field of maritime transport, there is one general European Directive:
1. Council Directive 1999/35/EC of 29 April 1999 on a system of mandatory
surveys for the safe operation of regular ro-ro ferry and high-speed
passenger craft services
The purpose of a safety (or accident) investigation, the methods and practices,
as well as the definitions have been set by the International Maritime
Organisation (IMO). The accident investigation in Europe and worldwide tends
to respect the IMO Code for the Investigation of Marine Casualties and
Incidents, agreed upon by the Resolution A849/20 from 1997.
The European Directive structures the maritime transport in a quite general
manner. It is not specific to accident investigation and does not require the
Member States to establish an independent investigation body. However, the
Directive’s aim is to ensure the harmonised enforcement of some principles
agreed upon within the IMO, particularly the IMO Code for the Investigation of
Marine Casualties and Incidents. The IMO Code states that ideally an
investigation on a marine casualty should be separate from, and independent
of, any other form of investigation. Therefore, while the Member States have no
formal obligation to establish an independent investigation body for the
investigation of marine casualties, this remains an objective. National laws
adapting the international and European recommendations concerning the
independence of the safety investigation and of the investigation body exist in
Germany, France, Finland and United Kingdom.
In the field of rail transport, there are three general Directives:
1. Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's
railways amended by the
2. Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
26 February 2001; and
3. Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on
safety on the Community's railways
The purpose of a safety (or accident) investigation, the methods and practices
as well as the definitions are set by the 2004 Directive. It requires the Member
States to establish an independent accident investigation body. The European
Directives’ structure the rail transport in a quite general manner. The
International Union of Railways (UIC) uses the European definitions for its
Bibliographical Analysis
Project co-financed by the European Commission, Directorate-General Transport and Energy
sn_inrets_wp4_d4.1_14/11/2005_final Page 6
Safety Data Base project. National laws adapting the European requirements
concerning the independence of the safety investigation and of the investigation
body exist or will shortly be acted in all studied Member States.
In the field of road transport, there are no European Directives or Regulations
nor any other international legal framework. National laws on safety (or
accident) investigation and the investigation body exist in France and in Finland.
Italy, Germany and United Kingdom have opted for separate investigation
bodies for different transport modes. France has opted for separate
investigation bodies for civil aviation and maritime, while all the land transports
are investigated by one body. Finland has an investigation body for civil aviation
and all major accidents, whether they involve a mode of transport or not, and
another system for investigating road and cross-country accidents.
It is clear that road accident investigations differ from the accident investigation
in other transport modes. Only two of the Member States, whose accident
investigation practices have been assessed, have a legal national framework
applicable to road accident safety investigation. In France, the decision on
opening a safety investigation on a road accident is taken by the Minister of
Transport. In 2004, only three accidents involving road traffic vehicles were
investigated. In Finland, all fatal road accidents and some non-fatal road
accidents are investigated. On average, some 500 road accidents, of which 370
fatal, are investigated annually.
The bulk of the research in road safety in all involved Member States, with the
exception of Finland, is therefore made by research bodies that do not have the
legal status of a body responsible for conducting safety (or accident)
investigations
Building the European Road Safety Observatory. SafetyNet. Deliverable D4.3: Draft recommendations for transparent and independent accident investigation – a working paper
Building the European Road Safety Observatory. SafetyNet. Deliverable D4.3: Draft recommendations for transparent and independent accident investigation – a working pape
Building the European Road Safety Observatory. SafetyNet. Deliverable D4.2 Database transparency
Road transport and all road transport related industries are clearly very
important to European economy and societies. In terms of impact to European
employment for instance, road transport is probably the most important
transport sector. On the other hand, the relatively poor road safety – accidents,
those killed and injured, material damage and other socio-economic costs –
constitutes a major socio-economic problem.
While road safety has recently emerged as an issue on all political decisionmaking
levels, it was for a long time neglected compared to the issue of safety
in the public transport modes, such as rail, air and maritime. This delay and the
requirement of independence for accident investigating entities in the public
transport modes result from the characteristics of different transport modes.
Independence of an investigation body is to be understood as a means of
assuring its impartiality – and that of the investigations it conducts.
However, the independence of the investigation body and processes do not
resolve the question of the quality of investigations. The quality of the
investigation work relies certainly on the impartiality of the investigating body
and processes, but also on the qualifications and experience of the
investigators, as well as the investigation methods they use. It is not
independence, but transparency that best describes these aspects of accident
investigation. We shall define transparency as the availability of such relevant
information on the accident investigation, which allow its quality to be assessed.
In this deliverable, we have applied the concept of transparency only to
databases, but it does apply to all accident investigation results: data, case
studies or accident reports and any other subsequent data.
Investigation bodies frequently cooperate with similar bodies from other
countries or with other stakeholders (manufacturers, operators, regulators,
consumers etc.), for specific accident investigations, and such interrelations
strengthen their impartiality. In quite a similar manner, transparency can be
further facilitated by the use of international methods and standards. The
process of building a European road safety community through Commission
supported research programmes is important in creating interrelations between
research institutes and in creating progressively a body of common European
accident investigation methods, standards, data and knowledge.
The reviewed databases can roughly be divided in two categories. There are
the police collected data that, in spite of their drawbacks, have the advantage of
being national. The percentage of under-reporting and under-recording can be
quite consequent, but this is rather irrelevant when national statistics are used
for continued trend monitoring for instance. On the other hand there are the
research oriented databases, whose uses are specific and depend on the
research objectives. In some cases such databases might result for instance
from legal obligations set for insurers, and might even contain police or other
extensive data from certain areas and for longer periods. Other databases have
been designed for a one-off use.
Database transparency
Project co-financed by the European Commission, Directorate-General Transport and Energy
sn_inrets_wp4_d4.2_final_03/02/2006 Page 5
All the databases reviewed in this deliverable are, according to our evaluation,
transparent. In other terms, there is sufficient information available on all the
relevant aspects of these databases for assessing their actual quality. Making
quality evaluations was not an objective of this work package and we have not
proceeded to such quality evaluations. The principal reason for this is the fact
that databases cannot be evaluated against a single scale. They have been
designed for answering specific questions and should be judged on the basis of
how well they reach that particular objective. The establishment of criteria for
evaluating the transparency of accident investigation data (databases in this
deliverable) was in itself a challenging task. Nevertheless we felt it had to be
completed by some considerations on the use of accident investigation data
and the limits that should be set to transparency.
The only necessary limit that should be set to the transparency of accident
investigation data is the right to privacy. Individual, identifiable accident level
data should not be made publicly available – unless such data is necessary for
understanding the circumstances and the sequence of events in case of major
accidents (like the public transport accidents frequently are).
There is another limitation to the transparency of accident investigation data,
which results from the nature of that data. The investigation data is not just
“observed” but is “constructed” according to specific, well-defined
methodological choices. The process of data gathering, which begins with the
choice of some particular pieces of information amongst a large number of
details about an accident and ends with synthesized data, is a rather complex
process and calls for specific qualifications and experience. The same is of
course true –unfortunately perhaps – for appreciating the investigation results
and participating to any debates about their scientific quality.
While this limitation is real and has to be accepted, there is no need – quite the
contrary – to conceal information from the public. Transport safety in all
transport modes is an issue of public interest and adequate1 safety information,
including accident investigation data, has to be publicly available. Sometimes
public will misinterprete some of the available data, which will need to be dealt
with. In any case, this would be a far lesser evil than having to constantly
reassure the public that important safety related information is not being
concealed