Practical guidelines for the registration and monitoring of serious traffic injuries, D7.1 of the H2020 project SafetyCube

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Crashes also cause numerous serious traffic injuries, resulting in considerable economic and human costs. Given the burden of injury produced by traffic, using only fatalities as an indicator to monitor road safety gives a very small picture of the health impact of traffic crashes, just the tip of the iceberg. Moreover, in several countries during the last years the number of serious traffic injuries has not been decreasing as fast as the number of fatalities. In other countries the number of serious traffic injuries has even been increasing (Berecki-Gisolf et al., 2013; IRTAD Working Group on Serious Road Traffic Casualties, 2010; Weijermars et al., 2015).Therefore, serious traffic injuries are more commonly being adopted by policy makers as an additional indicator of road safety. Reducing the number of serious traffic injuries is one of the key priorities in the road safety programme 2011-2020 of the European Commission (EC, 2010). To be able to compare performance and monitor developments in serious traffic injuries across Europe, a common definition of a serious road injury was necessary. In January 2013, the High Level Group on Road Safety, representing all EU Member States, established the definition of serious traffic injuries as road casualties with an injury level of MAIS ≥ 3. The Maximum AIS represents the most severe injury obtained by a casualty according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). Traditionally the main source of information on traffic accidents and injuries has been the police registration. This provides the official data for statistics at national and European level (CARE Database). Data reported by police usually is very detailed about the circumstances of the crash particularly if there are people injured or killed. But on the other hand police cannot assess the severity of injuries in a reliable way, due, obviously to their training. Therefore, police based data use to classify people involved in a crash as fatality, severe injured if hospitalised more than 24 hours and slight injured if not hospitalised. Moreover, it is known that even a so clear definition as a fatality is not always well reported and produces underreporting. This is due to several factors such as lack of coverage of police at the scene or people dying at hospital not followed by police (Amoros et al., 2006; Broughton et al., 2007; Pérez et al., 2006). Hospital records of patients with road traffic injuries usually include very little information on circumstances of the crash but it does contain data about the person, the hospitalisation (date of hospitalisation and discharge, medical diagnosis, mechanism or external cause of injury, and interventions). Hospital inpatient Discharge Register (HDR) offers an opportunity to complement police data on road traffic injuries. Medical diagnoses can be used to derive information about severity of injuries. Among others, one of the possible scales to measure injury severity is the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). The High Level group identified three main ways Member States can collect data on serious traffic injuries (MAIS ≥ 3): 1) by applying a correction on police data, 2) by using hospital data and 3) by using linked police and hospital data. Once one of these three ways is selected, several additional choices need to be made. In order to be able to compare injury data across different countries, it is important to understand the effects of methodological choices on the estimated numbers of serious traffic injuries. A number of questions arise: How to determine the correction factors that are to be applied to police data? How to select road traffic casualties in the hospital data and how to derive MAIS ≥ 3 casualties? How should police and hospital data be linked and how can the number of MAIS ≥ 3 casualties be determined on the basis of the linked data sources? Currently, EU member states use different procedures to determine the number of MAIS ≥ 3 traffic injuries, dependent on the available data. Given the major differences in the procedures being applied, the quality of the data differs considerably and the numbers are not yet fully comparable between countries. In order to be able to compare injury data across different countries, it is important to understand the effects of methodological choices on the estimated numbers of serious traffic injuries. Work Package 7 of SafetyCube project is dedicated to serious traffic injuries, their health impacts and their costs. One of the aims of work package 7 is to assess and improve the estimation of the number of serious traffic injuries. The aim of this deliverable (D7.1) is to report practices in Europe concerning the reporting of serious traffic injuries and to provide guidelines and recommendations applied to each of the three main ways to estimate the number of road traffic serious injuries. Specific objectives for this deliverable are to: Describe the current state of collection of data on serious traffic injuries across Europe Provide practical guidelines for the estimation of the number of serious traffic injuries for each of the three ways identified by the High Level Group Examine how the estimated number of serious traffic injuries is affected by differences in methodology

Road Safety Performance Indicators: Theory. Deliverable D3.6 of the EU FP6 project SafetyNet.

This document provides details about the theory behind the development of Safety Performance Indicators (SPIs) in seven major areas which are central to the fields of activity in road safety in Europe. The fields of activity were selected as a result of reviews of national road safety plans in many of the EU countries and around the world and are considered the central themes of activity in road safety, necessary to bring about a significant improvement in road safety in the EU countries. Within each field SPIs were developed which are directly related to that field of activity, can be quantitatively measured, can provide the basis for the assessment of the level of road safety in each country and can serve as an indicator to describe the level of activity in that field and country and can provide a yardstick for comparison. Comparisons can be before and after certain actions are taken or can be comparisons between countries. As stated above, this document deals with the theory behind the development of each of the seven SPIs. It provides the rationale behind their development, the proofs for their relevance in the specific fields and the existing limitations that led to the adoption of the specific SPIs. The document provides also some recommendations for the possible improvements required to obtain better SPIs. Two companion documents are also being prepared. One is a manual which provides details on the procedures necessary to collects the required data for the development of each SPI in each country. The second document provides results on the data collected so far for each of the 25 EU countries and the SPIs developed so far, based on the data submitted by each of the countries. It can be seen that a lot of work still has to be done, both in collecting the necessary data and in improving the SPIs, once better and more detailed data becomes available

Building the European Road Safety Observatory. SafetyNet. Deliverable 2.2.2 First classification of the EU member states on risk and exposure data

This report is based on the replies to the questionnaire on Risk Exposure Data (RED) that was sent to the national experts of all EU member states plus Norway. The present report can be seen as a first classification of the EU member states on RED availability, compatibility and usability. On the basis of these results, a clear distinction can be made between indicators that are at least generally available in Europe and indicators that are not generally available. There is a relation between availability and the level of complexity of the indicators. Basic indicators are more generally available than more complex ones. The most widely available indicators are population, vehicle fleet, road length, fuel consumption, driver kilometres and vehicle kilometres. The less available indicators are: person kilometres, number of trips and time in traffic. Based on examination of compatibility with CARE, five of the six generally available indicators are regarded as compatible with CARE. The only indicator that is not regarded as compatible with CARE is "fuel consumption". The main reason is that transport use can not be distinguished in the data collected in many countries. The other five indicators: population, driver population, vehicle fleet, road length and vehicle kilometres are regarded as compatible with CARE, or at least partially compatible. These five indicators are thus regarded as usable. The other indicators are less than partially available or not compatible with the CARE data. However, this does not mean that these indicators are useless. They can still provide valuable information on national or small-scale international level. For European wide comparison these indicators are not (yet) suitable for usage in the common framework. The five currently usable indicators are: Population road length Vehicle fleet Driver population Vehicle kilometre

Building the European Road Safety Observatory. SafetyNet. Deliverable 2.3 Risk exposure data common framework - annexes

Building the European Road Safety Observatory. SafetyNet. Deliverable 2.3 Risk exposure data common framework - annexe

Building the European Road Safety Observatory. SafetyNet. Deliverable 2.3 Risk exposure data common framework

This document consists of four parts. Chapter 1 summarizes the methods and results of previous activities of SafetyNet WP2 (first classification of the EU Member States with respect to risk exposure data availability and compatibility, based on a state-of-the-art survey) and outlines the further steps required for a full assessment of risk exposure data compatibility towards a common framework for accident risk analysis in Europe. Moreover, it is devoted to a description of the methodology used for the detailed assessment of risk exposure data (RED) availability and comparability in the EU, in terms of variables and values, collection methodologies and data structure. Chapter 2 concerns an analysis of the Risk Exposure Data (RED) needs in the EU, as stated by National Experts of many Member States. The analysis allows for the identification of the indicators, variables and values that are most important to road safety researchers in the EU. This analysis is used as a reference for the development of the common framework of Risk Exposure Data. The results of this analysis allow for the identification of comparable variables and values per collection method for each indicator. The synthesis is included in Chapter 3 of this document. More specifically, for each indicator and for each collection method of that indicator, variables, values and definitions are compared among EU countries. Within this framework, summary tables are presented and transformation rules are proposed, where possible, for the improvement of the comparability of Risk Exposure Data. From this process the current common RED framework is identified, for analyses using the CARE data, together with a set of comparable exposure data. These comparable sets of exposure data are summarized in Chapter 4 of this document. Moreover, these results are combined with those of the analysis of the RED needs, allowing for an overall picture with respect to the current and future potential of RED in the EU. The detailed tables from the analysis of compatibility per indicator and per country are presented in Annex II

Building the European Road Safety Observatory. SafetyNet. Deliverable D3.7a Road safety performance indicators: country comparisons

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

Road Safety Performance Indicators: Manual. Deliverable D3.8 of the EU FP6 project SafetyNet

Safety performance indicators (SPIs) are measures (indicators), reflecting those operational conditions of the road traffic system, which influence the system’s safety performance. Basic features of SPIs are their ability to measure unsafe operational conditions of the road traffic system and their independence from specific safety interventions. SPIs are aimed to serve as assisting tools in assessing the current safety conditions of a road traffic system, monitoring the progress, measuring impacts of various safety interventions, making comparisons, and for other purposes. Seven problem areas in road safety were selected for the development of SPIs in Europe, they are: alcohol and drug-use; speeds; protective systems; daytime running lights; vehicles (passive safety); roads (infrastructure) and the trauma management system. The theory behind the development of SPIs in each of the seven safety areas was presented by Hakkert et al (2007)1. The data obtained from the cooperating countries and the comparisons of safety performance of 27 countries2, in terms of the estimated SPIs, were presented in two other reports3 – Vis and van Gent (2007a), Vis and van Gent (2007b). This report is called a Manual as it should assist the countries in establishing the necessary systems of data collection for producing national SPIs, in each one of the predefined safety fields, and to make them comparable on a European level. For each safety area, the report defines quantitative SPIs, demonstrates existing practices for their measurements, provides best practice examples (when available), and details the procedures which are necessary to collect and process the required data for the estimation of the SPIs' set on a national level. Recognizing the potential for road safety improvements coming from the use of harmonized SPIs across the EU, enabling benchmarking as a proven tool in road safety policy, the Member States are encouraged to seek ways of applying a uniform methodology for producing national SPIs. The procedures and methods presented in the Manual should be treated as minimum quality requirements for producing national SPIs, in each one of the predefined safety fields. In addition, the report provides a more general theoretical background concerning the sampling issues in estimating SPIs (in general and in the context of specific SPI areas). Regarding setting up an SPI survey, the main questions considered are: sampling procedure to obtain a national sample; sampling size; sampling error; stratified sampling (combination into a single SPI by weighting); representativeness of the results and estimating confidence intervals of the SPI values. These issues are discussed in Chapter 2 and in the Statistical Appendix

Building the European Road Safety Observatory. SafetyNet. Deliverable D3.5 Safety performance indicators: Posters for the first SafetyNet Conference

Work Package 3 of SafetyNet deals with Safety Performance Indicators. They measure the operational conditions of the road traffic system. Work Package 3 deals with seven topics: alcohol and drug use; speeds; protective systems; daytime running lights; vehicles; road; trauma management. This deliverable concerns the contribution of Work Package 3 to the first SafetyNet conference, which was held in Prague on May 10 and 11, 2006. Each topic prepared a poster with an overview of the state-of-play. In this document, these posters are assembled. Each topic has a preferred indicator, which can be used for measuring safety performance across countries. This indicator is accompanied by requirements that should be met by the data, in order to be able to calculate the indicator. For most tasks, values could be calculated for the indicators by using the available data. Data are not available for all countries and/or all topics