Road Safety Strategies: A Comparative Framework and Case Studies

Abstract

This paper proposes a nine‐component analytical framework for developing, comparing, and evaluating road safety strategies. The nine components are: (1) vision; (2) objectives; (3) targets; (4) action plan; (5) evaluation and monitoring; (6) research and development; (7) quantitative modelling; (8) institutional framework; and (9) funding. While the first four components are essential for the formulation of a road safety strategy, the remaining components are key to its successful implementation. To demonstrate the usefulness of this comparative framework, we examine the road safety strategies of six selected administrations: Australia, California, Great Britain, Japan, New Zealand, and Sweden. In these case studies, we extract and highlight good practices in the formulation and implementation of their road safety strategies. The proposed framework also provides a systematic approach for assessing road safety strategies in other administrations. The evaluation of the six case studies forms a benchmarking platform for the planning, formulation, and implementation of good practices for road safety strategies.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Transport Department of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) for giving its permission to publish this paper, which is based on the contract research project ‘Review of Overseas Practices on the Formulation of Road Safety Strategy and the Effectiveness and the Applicability in Hong Kong’. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not represent those of the Government of the HKSAR. Research was partially supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the HKSAR, China (Project No. HKU 7296/04H), the Industry Fellow and Industry Associate Schemes, and the Faculty Innovative and Technology Fund of the University of Hong Kong (Project Account 10300172). The authors thank the Editor and two anonymous referees for support and insightful comments. An earlier version of the paper also benefited from helpful suggestions of Dr Y. L. Choi, Senior Industry Fellow, University of Hong Kong.

Notes

1. Much effort has been spent on ensuring that the road accident fatality numbers and rates of the six administrations (Table 2) are accurate, comprehensive and comparable. Nonetheless, there are some missing data.

2. These adjustment factors are, in turn, developed based on the information about the timing of road crash deaths in the European Union.

3. The authors are grateful to the Swedish National Road Administration for addressing their enquiry about the definition of road accident fatality in Sweden. The 30‐day definition has not been clearly stated in the road accident records of the IRF and the official road accident statistics of Sweden. A similar problem was recorded in Jacobs et al. (2000).

4. The authors are grateful to an anonymous referee for noting this point.

5. For information about the road safety strategies under review in each of these six administrations, see Table 5.

6. The estimated effects were primarily based on an unpublished report commissioned by the Australian Transport Council (2002). Downward adjustments have been made to account for the overlap when measures are implemented simultaneously and for the increased risk associated with the expected growth in road freight.

7. Nonetheless, the 30% target reduction rates for slight injuries and the total number of road accidents have not been achieved. Hence, the 2010 casualty reduction targets have been set more realistically and separately for different categories of road casualties (Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, 2002b).

8. The most important targets for road accident fatalities and serious injuries have been achieved.

9. Insufficient information prevents us from extending the detailed analysis to these six administrations. Moreover, there are other problems, such as underreporting (Jacobs et al., 2000), that have to be resolved before a meaningful international comparison can be made for these non‐selected administrations.