Post on 09-Apr-2020
WETENSCHAPSPARK 5
B 3590 DIEPENBEEK T ► 011 26 91 12
F ► 011 26 91 99 E ► info@steunpuntmowverkeersveiligheid.be
I ► www.steunpuntmowverkeersveiligheid.be
► Prof. dr. C. Macharis
► Evaluatietechnieken
► VUB, UHasselt, UGent, PHL, VITO
► RA-MOW-2010-002
The stakeholders and their criteria in road
safety measures.
The next step in the development of the MAMCA.
K. Van Raemdonck, E. Novikova, F. Van Malderen, C. Macharis
DIEPENBEEK, 2010.
STEUNPUNT MOBILITEIT & OPENBARE WERKEN
SPOOR VERKEERSVEILIGHEID
The stakeholders and their criteria in road safety
measures.
The next step in the development of the MAMCA.
RA-MOW-2010-002
K. Van Raemdonck, E. Novikova, F. Van Malderen, C. Macharis
Onderzoekslijn Evaluatietechnieken
Documentbeschrijving
Rapportnummer: RA-MOW-2010-002
Titel: The stakeholders and their criteria in road safety
measures
Ondertitel: The next step in the development of the MAMCA.
Auteur(s): K. Van Raemdonck, E. Novikova, F. Van Malderen
Promotor: Prof. dr. C. Macharis
Onderzoekslijn: Evaluatiemethoden
Partner: Vrije Universiteit Brussel – MOSI T
Aantal pagina’s: 36
Projectnummer Steunpunt: 5.1
Projectinhoud: Evaluatietechnieken
Uitgave: Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken – Spoor Verkeersveiligheid, april 2010.
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
Wetenschapspark 5
B 3590 Diepenbeek
T 011 26 91 12
F 011 26 91 99
E info@steunpuntmowverkeersveiligheid.be
I www.steunpuntmowverkeersveiligheid.be
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 3 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
Samenvatting
Een van de grote uitdagingen voor de beleidsmakers bestaat erin een afweging te maken
tussen de belangen van economische ontwikkelingen en het milieu, terwijl tegelijkertijd
rekening dient gehouden te worden met de sociale prioriteiten en verdelingseffecten van
de beslissingen. Mobiliteit is een goed voorbeeld van dit complexe gegeven, waarbij
moeilijke keuzes dienen gemaakt te worden. De beleidsmakers die de betrokken
stakeholders betrekken bij het beslissingsproces zullen potentieel meer inzicht en kennis
hebben over de problemen en alternatieven. Bij de evaluatie van de duurzaamheid van
verkeersveiligheidsmaatregelen dient dus rekening gehouden te worden met de
voorkeuren en objectieven van de stakeholders. Daarvoor wordt de Multi-Actor Multi-
Criteria Analyse, ontwikkeld door Macharis (2004), voorgesteld als een evaluatiemethode
die het mogelijk maakt om materiële en immateriële criteria te combineren wanneer men
de belangen van de verschillende stakeholders in kaart tracht te brengen. Eerst wordt in
dit rapport het concept van duurzame verkeersveiligheid uitgelegd, waarna de theorie
van de stakeholders wordt toegelicht. Vervolgens worden er enkele scenario’s
weergegeven voor de belangrijkste verkeersveiligheidsmaatregelen. In het vierde deel
wordt er een overzicht gegeven van de belangrijkste stakeholders en hun criteria op
basis van hun doelstellingen. De beoordeling van de directe en indirecte effecten van
verkeersveiligheid wordt nagegaan door middel van een literatuurstudie en een grondige
analyse van de Europese projecten waarvan het hoofddoel de uitvoering en evaluatie van
verkeersveiligheidsmaatregelen was. Het rapport eindigt met enkele besluiten.
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 4 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
English summary
Title: The main stakeholders and their criteria in road safety measures.
Subtitle: The next step in the development of the MAMCA
Abstract
One of the great challenges facing policy makers is to reconcile the different priorities
between economic development and environment, while at the same time considering
the different social priorities and the distributional consequences of decisions. Transport
is a good example of the complexity of these choices. Those policy makers who engage
the stakeholders within the domain of sustainability can potentially affect government’s
understanding and knowledge. In order to evaluate sustainability of road safety
measures the preferences and objectives of all stakeholders need to be taken into
account. Therefore, a Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria approach, developed by Macharis (2004),
is proposed as an evaluation method which allows to combine tangible and intangible
criteria while considering the interests of all stakeholders. The concept of sustainable
road safety is introduced first. The theory of stakeholder is explained next. In section 3
an overview of the main road safety measures is given aiming to define the possible
scenarios in road safety. In section 4 the main stakeholders and their criteria are
identified based on their objectives and the assessment of direct and indirect effects of
road safety measures through a literature survey and thorough analysis of the European
projects whose main focus was the implementation and assessment of road safety
measures. Conclusion finalises the report.
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 5 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
Table of Content
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 6
2. ADVANCING THE SUSTAINABLE SAFETY ............................................... 8
3. THE STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS ........................................................ 10
4. ROAD SAFETY MEASURES: 4 ES ENGINEERING-ENFORCEMENT-EDUCATION-
ETHICAL DECISION MAKING. THE MAIN STAKEHOLDERS AND THEIR CRITERIA. .......... 11
4.1 User related measures: training and education, traffic law enforcement 11
4.1.1 Traffic law enforcement. ...............................................................11
4.1.2 Training and education .................................................................12
4.2 Vehicle related measures: active safety, passive safety, telematics, e-safety 13
4.3 Infrastructure related measures: road design, road construction, maintenance 13
4.4 Cases from the literature 14
4.5 The stakeholders and their criteria 23
4.5.1 User related measures ..................................................................23
4.5.2 Vehicle related measures ..............................................................25
4.5.3 Infrastructure related measures .....................................................27
5. CONCLUSION ........................................................................... 30
5.1 Future Research 30
REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 32
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 6 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
1. INTRODUCTION
One of the great challenges facing policy-makers is to reconcile the different priorities
between economic development and environment, while at the same time considering
the different social importances and the distributional consequences of decisions.
Transport is a good example of the complexity of these choices. Those policy makers who
engage the stakeholders within the domain of sustainability can potentially affect
government’s understanding, interpretations and knowledge. Sustainability is the ability
to maintain balance of a certain process or state in any system. The three pillars of
sustainability are economic, social and environmental. They are not mutually exclusive
but mutually reinforcing. The current concern with sustainability shows a clear change in
the social values and leads to a new perception of road safety with a domineering role of
the systematic approach. A lot has been said about sustainable transportation and its
influence on the environment (Haq 1997, Fontela et al. 2007, Kohler 2006, Geurs and
Van Wee 2000) but little attention has been paid to sustainability in road safety and how
that will affect the policy making and the importance given to each criterion by the main
stakeholders. The question that the policy makers should bear in mind is how to estimate
the impact of all measures and the rebound effects.
Traditionally the driver was the only responsible for the road accident. Currently road
safety is seen as a system where the responsibility is shared among all parties involved.
The approaches to driving have been altered accordingly. Malaterre (2006) distinguishes
the systematic and the driver-centered approaches. According to the first approach the
blame cannot be attributed to a single actor but it has to be attributed to the interaction
between multiple actors within the system, whereas within the second approach the
drivers are encouraged to act according to their moral obligations as an individual and
are fully responsible for the road accident. Following the systematic approach three
factors may play a role in the occurrence of road accidents: human error, the vehicle and
the physical environment. In many cases it is shown that the interaction of these factors
is responsible for the accident. Considering this human-vehicle-environment model and
the chronology precrash-crash-postcrash, a matrix of factors that affect road safety, and
that could be used to improve road safety, can be set up (Haddon, 1968; MOW 2008).
This matrix is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. The Haddon-matrix
Human Vehicle and
Equipment
Environment
Precrash
Accident
prevention
Information Speed control Road layout &
infrastructure Attitudes Lightning
Disorders Brakes Speed limits
Police enforcement Technical
equipment
Facilities for
vulnerable road users …
… …
Crash
Injury
prevention
during
accident
Use of protective
tools (e.g. seatbelt)
Injury-avoiding
design
Protective elements in
road design
… Protective tools … …
Postcrash
Life
conservation,
care
First aid Accessibility Congestion
Specialized aid Fire danger Call facilities
emergency services … …
…
Bron: MOW, 2008
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 7 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
A good example of the systematic approach is a road safety program, introduced by the
Swedish government, called Vision Zero. This new safety paradigm is built around the
idea that even if not all crashes can be avoided, all severe injuries can be in principle
avoided. Vision Zero is a system where all predicted crashes and collisions have tolerable
health losses. Its design is based on the human biomechanical forces (Johansson 2009).
In this respect the engineer should aim at constructing a traffic system where this human
tolerance is not exceeded. Therefore, this change in the approach to road safety calls for
introduction of the idea of sustainability in the evaluation methods. In this context
sustainability can be regarded as a principle under which all the other aspects (safety,
economic development, environmental impact, public health, mobility, community needs,
etc.) should be addressed. Needless to say that road safety is a prerequisite for
sustainable transport system. Its assessment is usually based on cost benefit analysis or
cost effectiveness analysis. However, in order to evaluate sustainability of road safety
measures the preferences and objectives of all stakeholders need to be taken into
account. Therefore, a multi-actor multi-criteria approach (MAMCA), developed by
Macharis (2004), is proposed as an evaluation method which allows to combine tangible
and intangible criteria while considering the interests of all stakeholders.
The purpose of this report is to identify the main stakeholders and their criteria in the
context of sustainable road safety. The concept of sustainable road safety is introduced
first based on the Dutch and Belgian approaches. The stakeholder theory is explained
next. Stakeholder analysis evolved out of concern with distribution of power and the role
of interest groups in decision-making process.
In section 3 an overview of the main road safety measures is given aiming to define the
possible scenarios in road safety. In section 4 the main stakeholders and their criteria are
identified based on their objectives and the assessment of direct and indirect effects of
road safety measures through a literature survey and a thorough analysis of the
European projects whose main focus was the implementation and assessment of road
safety measures. Conclusion finalises the report.
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 8 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
2. ADVANCING THE SUSTAINABLE SAFETY
The concept of sustainable road safety has been adopted by the Dutch Government as an
official part of its policy. It has been developed in the early nineties by the Dutch
Institute for Road Safety Research and can be defined as followed: The Sustainable
Safety vision aims to prevent road accidents and, if this seems impossible, it aims to
reduce the severity of an accident so that the risk of (serious) injury is virtually excluded.
These goals are pursued through a proactive approach; to assess in which traffic conflict
situations serious injuries can occur. Then there are two possibilities: the conditions are
adapted so that either the probability of an accident to occur is virtually impossible, or, if
an accident is unavoidable, the risk of serious injury in that accident is eliminated. To this
end, man is taken as “the measure of things” in this vision (SWOV, 2010; MOW, 2008).
Inspired by the Brundlandt-report on sustainable development, published in 1987, it
brings the knowledge from different fields together: transportation planning, traffic
engineering, social sciences, biomechanics, management and economics. The report
deals with sustainable development and gives the following definition of the term:
"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”
Sustainable safety is defined by five fundamental principles (see Table 2):
Table 2. The five Sustainable Safety Principles
Sustainable Safety Principles Description
Functionality of roads Monofunctionality of roads, as either flow
roads, distributor roads, access roads, in a
hierarchically structured road network.
Homogeneity of masses and/or
speed and direction
Equality in speed, direction and masses at
medium and high speeds
Predictability of road course
and road user behaviour by a
recognisable road design
Road environment and road user behavior
that support road user expectations via
consistency and continuity in road design
Forgiveness of the environment
and of road users
Injury limitation through a forgiving road
environment and anticipation of road user
behavior
State awareness by the road
user
Ability to assess one’s own task capability
Source: www.swov.nl
The principles are based on theories from traffic planning and engineering, biomechanics
and psychology. This approach states that traffic has to be safe for everybody and not
just for the ‘average road user’. This is illustrated by a task capability model (Wegman,
2005). This model states that the task capability level of road users is the result of their
competences and their situational state, such as fatigue, stress, drugs, etc. In order to
be a safe road user the task capability should be good enough to cope with the task
demands. These task demands are dominated by the environment. Because people differ
in their task capability, generic safety measures should be supplemented with specific
measures targeted at groups with a diminished task capability. These specific measures
are mainly a matter of education and e-safety aimed at the Sustainable Safety principle
of state awareness. If road users have enough task capability to assess their state they
can decide not to travel. The other principles should be considered as well when
evaluating the sustainability of a road safety measure.
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 9 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
The elaboration of a road safety plan in Belgium and specifically in Flanders started in the
beginning of 2006. Its framework is focused on a policy of sustainable mobility. Since
Belgium is a federalised country with a large autonomy for the three regions (Flanders,
Wallonie and the Brussels Capital region), the road safety plan has strong links with
other plans and policy domains on ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ levels (Daniels & Hout 2006).
The vertical level are road safety plans that exist on local, national and international
levels. The horizontal level comprises of road safety and mobility in general. In the
Flanders policy vision the horizontal integration is expressed as “sustainable mobility”
based on principles of sustainable development (MVG 2003). Therefore the road safety
plan aims at integrating the environmental plans, economic development plans, housing
and urban planning. It is worth noting that the federal sustainable mobility plan was
running from 1996-2001 as one of the specific programs under the Scientific Plan for
Sustainable Development Policy. The sustainable mobility program mainly focuses on
environmental and road safety aspects. Among the projects whose main focus was the
relations between transport and sustainable development we should mention the
following:
• Towards Sustainable Mobility: economic and spatial effects of increasing goods
traffic
• Sustainable Mobility Information System (SMIS)
• Assessment of the risks of toxicity from the road traffic pollution: a molecular
epidemiology approach
• The external costs of transportation
• LAMBIT: a tool for achieving sustainable intermodal transport in Belgium
• Impact of traffic safety and traffic endurability problems: objective and subjective
factors
• Impact of spatial planning on sustainable traffic safety, Belgian situation analysis
Overall the sustainability adds integrity to road safety whose aims are mobility and
safety. Many measures and instruments should be examined in the light of these three
goals. Therefore the stakeholders and their criteria should also reflect the integrity of
road safety.
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 10 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
3. THE STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
As it has been previously mentioned the evaluation of transport projects in general and
road safety in particular has grown in complexity which made the use of multi-criteria
analysis increasingly popular. At the same time the importance of stakeholders acquired
a new dimension since many different often conflicting priorities need to be taken into
account during the decision-making process, especially in order to support the ideals of
sustainability because selection of stakeholders groups will reflect the values of those
selecting. The inclusion of stakeholders and their priorities into the evaluation process
will thus significantly increase the public acceptance of the chosen measure. The concept
of stakeholder is not new and was introduced in the management literature by Freeman
(1984). The variety of views as to who are the stakeholders dictates a need for being
more specific about the definition and process of identifying stakeholders. There are
several methods and techniques for identifying and managing stakeholders (Bryson
2003, Banville et. al. 1998, Geudens et al. 2009).
People acquire the status of stakeholders because they have vested interest in a problem
in any of three different ways: 1) by mainly affecting it; 2) by being mainly affected by
it; 3) or both, by affecting it and being affected by it (Banville et al. 1998). In other
words, a first way that stakeholders can have a vested interest in a problem is when they
are in a position through the resources they control. Secondly, they have a vested
interest when the problem has a direct impact on them. A third way is when people are
in a position to influence and being influenced. The interests of all stakeholders are of
intrinsic value. That is, each group of stakeholders has consideration for its own sake and
not because of its concern to further the interest of some other group (Donaldson &
Preston, 1995).
Not all stakeholders are necessarily participating in the decision-making process. The
inclusion of stakeholders depends on many factors, namely the type of decision process,
the characteristics of the situation, the time constraints or the physical proximity.
Therefore, the identification and classification of stakeholders are very much situation-
dependent. In practice, the notion of stakeholder must be directly related to that of the
problem. The stakeholders’ identification process assists significantly in formulating the
problem as well as the nature of a problem helps in identifying the stakeholders.
Needless to say that the participation of stakeholders is extremely important for multi-
criteria decision analysis due to the socio-political dimension of the problem-solving
process. The stakeholder involvement serves two goals: to clarify the criteria for
sustainable outcomes, and to activate the practices according to these criteria. Although
stakeholder management receives considerable attention in literature, the problem of
actual stakeholder identification is yet unresolved. Stakeholder analysis should be viewed
as a tool that would help to identify the range of stakeholders to be consulted and whose
views should be taken into account in the evaluation process.
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 11 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
4. ROAD SAFETY MEASURES : 4 ES ENGINEERING -
ENFORCEMENT-EDUCATION-ETHICAL DEC ISION
MAKING . THE MAIN STAKEHOLDERS AND THEIR
CRITERIA .
Road safety measures aim at an integrated approach and target driver behavior, vehicle
design and road infrastructure. They can be classified as user related measures, vehicle
related measures and infrastructure related measures. This approach is consistent with
the human-vehicle-environment relationship in Haddon’s systematic approach (1968).
4.1 User related measures: training and education, traffic law
enforcement
Besides enforcement education is an essential instrument for informing and training the
road users. It is expected that educational measures will have a long-term impact on
driver’s behavior and will lead to increased road safety.
4.1.1 Traffic law enforcement.
This group of measures contains a number of conflicting objectives and deserves special
attention, since not all stakeholders are convinced of the impact of such a measure. First
traffic law enforcement will be discussed, thereafter education and training will be
treated. In 2004 the project SARTRE3 (Social Attitude to Road Traffic Risks in Europe),
co-funded by the European Commission, asked 24,000 EU citizens about their views on
road safety enforcement. 76 % of all the drivers questioned were in favor of safety
enforcement and 35 % were strongly in favor. After the public consultation the results
have shown that 15% of the respondents favor EU action limited to the three main traffic
offences responsible for traffic accidents (speeding, drink-driving and non-use of seat
belts), 19 % of them propose to extend EU actions to some other offences; 26% of them
propose an extension of the scope to all other traffic offences; 34% of them propose to
initially limit the scope to the three main traffic offences and then progressively extend it
to all other offences.
The analysis of the impact of these measures will help to define the criteria. The main
positive impacts are expected on safety of road users. Better enforcement will lead to a
decrease in the number of traffic offences. Among the positive impacts the following
should be distinguished (Working Paper, 2008):
• Respecting the traffic rules has a positive impact on traffic fluency which will
result in less time pressure for the professional drivers.
• Besides less time pressure for truck and bus drivers, an indirect positive impact
for professional transport can be expected regarding the physical damage in
accidents and the time lost due to congestion.
• An indirect effect of improved enforcement will be less congestion due to
accidents. Vehicles use more energy at very low speeds; as a result energy
consumption goes up with congestion. Fewer accidents will lead to less energy
consumption. According to recent studies 12 % of the congestion is a result of an
accident (Van Raemdonck, 2009),
Impact of speed on environment:
• Impact on production of exhaust fumes (carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrocarbon,
nitrogen monoxide, particles): pollutant productions are optimised at a constant
speed of 40 to 90 km/h for individual vehicles and at a constant speed of 50 to 70
km/h for trucks and buses
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 12 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
• Impact of fuel consumption: speeding increases fuel consumption in regular
traffic. Fuel consumption is about 23 % lower at a constant speed of 90 to 110
km/h
• Impact on ozone: ozone is not directly produced by motor vehicles. They produce
a high proportion of hydrocarbon and nitrogen monoxide which result in complex
chemical reactions and consequently produce ozone in the atmosphere.
• Impact of speed on noise: There are two sources of noise: the engine and the
interaction between tyres and road surface. The latter is the most important, from
20 to 40 km/h for individual vehicles, and from 30 to 60 km/h for trucks. It
increases when speeding, about 12 dB(A) each time speed is doubled.
The negative impacts are mainly related to additional costs for the governments.
4.1.2 Training and education
Education comprises of driver training, traffic education and information campaigns.
Public information campaigns provide information or advice on a particular subject
related to all road users, or aim at a particular transport mode or age group. Road Safety
Education (RSE) emphises on:
1) Promotion of knowledge and understanding of traffic rules and situations
2) Improvement of skills through training and experience
3) Strengthening and/or changing the attitude towards risk awareness, personal safety
and the safety of other road users.
It is important to stress that RSE is no longer only a school-based activity but rather the
involvement of several other organizations, such as health care, youth centers and sport
associations. Therefore, one of the main objectives of RSE is creating partnerships
among all the parties involved at regional, national and European levels. The coordination
in RSE is shown in Figure 1:
Figure 1:
Source: ROSE 25, EU (2003)
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 13 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
According to recent studies road safety education and training proved to be largely
ineffective in reducing death and injury (Mayhew et al. 2002, Dragunovic & Twisk, 2006).
Therefore, it is not always taken into account.
The education programs are aimed at three key road user groups: drivers, cyclists and
pedestrians. The drivers education often improves driver knowledge and skill but it does
not lead to a change in on-road behavior. Therefore, over-confidence may distort the
hazard and risk perception which increases exposure-to-risk. A complex area in this
respect is how to recognise the personal skill limitations and how to ‘manage’ safety
margins in accordance with it. Furthermore, when implementing the education programs
one should consider vulnerable target groups such as young people, the elderly and
children. The fatality rate among young drivers is significantly higher than among the
older drivers. According to the European Road Safety Observatory young people are at
most twice the average risk of being killed in a road accident compared to the average
number of the respective population across the 19 EU countries. Based on the principle of
sustainability the following objectives should be defined within education and training
(Wegman & Arts, 2005):
• Encourage people to take safety into account when making decisions about
transport mode, vehicle and routes.
• Change of perspective and seeing the context. The perspective changes between
one’s own safety and other areas (environment, noise)
• Hazard perception and risk acceptance should be considered along with the ability
of recognising and respecting one’s own and other people’s limitations.
4.2 Vehicle related measures: active safety, passive safety,
telematics, e-safety
This group of measures may be considered as the least controversial ones. Automotive
manufactures aim at protecting the passengers of cars and also the third parties in case
of an accident, which is called passive safety. The New Car Assessment Program (NCAP)
and the European Union introduced the approval legislation in order to provide a safety
rating on new passenger cars based on crash-tests. The safety belt is a very effective
and best known passive safety device.
Active safety devices are based on the art information technology within the car and in
communication with the other cars and infrastructures. Most of these technologies are
deployed in E-Safety initiative. E-safety is a joint initiative of the European Commission,
industry and other stakeholders. It aims to accelerate the development and deployment
of Intelligent Vehicle Safety Systems that use information and communication
technologies to increase road safety. A public consultation has been launched and the
following stakeholders have been consulted: manufactures, policy makers and road
users.
4.3 Infrastructure related measures: road design, road
construction, maintenance
Within this group of measures the priority is given to road infrastructure safety
management and sustainable road safety engineering. Roads are usually designed
according to criteria concerning urban and regional planning, travel time, user comfort
and convenience, fuel consumption, construction cost and environmental impact.
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 14 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
After the implementation of the EU-directive 2008/96/EG there will be used four
measures in EU Member States in relation to infrastructure(TREN E3):
• Road safety impact assessment.
Through road safety impact assessment the safety impacts are fully assessed,
documented and transparent before a choice is made between alternative projects (Ampe
et al, 2008; van Lier et al, 2009).
Road safety impact assessments should take place at an early stage to allow the results
of the assessment to influence the further planning process, as in the case of
environmental impact assessment. Moreover, it is proposed to carry them out on all
transport policy measures having an influence on road safety such as infrastructure
investments, standardization, pricing, etc.
• Road safety audits.
Once the road design is chosen the dangerous elements can be identified and rectified.
The road safety audits provide the tools and know-how to identify possible mistakes
before the road is cast in concrete. Introducing the early improvements and corrections
at planning and design stages will allow the economic and social costs of accidents to be
reduced.
• Network safety management.
This group focuses on measures that have the highest accident reduction potential. It will
consider the parts of the network where most can be gained in relation to the cost.
Identification of high-risk road sections or black spots is expected to decrease the
number of fatal or severe accidents significantly. Safety gains are expected to be high in
a high risk management program. Once the black spots are dealt with, the quality of the
whole network can be improved. Assessments could range from identifying and treating
accident patterns at a single high-risk site to managing safety over the whole route.
• Safety Inspections
The inspections could enable a risk analysis to indicate both where accidents are likely to
happen and which action would be appropriate. The risk analysis can be used to establish
the link between the design elements and accident occurrence. Accident reports play a
crucial role in improving road infrastructure. Therefore, the importance of the accurate
data should be brought into attention.
4.4 Cases from the literature
Comments were received from the main stakeholders, namely national governments,
research institutes and safety experts, health, transport and road safety organizations,
user associations and road operator associations in relation to road safety assessments.
In the 2nd Verona declaration (26 Oct 2004) it is stated that road safety criteria should be
included in any investment as well as a road safety audit. The following stakeholders
have been consulted regarding this directive: a platform of road users such as motorists,
professional drivers, two-wheelers and pedestrians, network managers and other safety
specialists. The safe design and engineering of roads, reduced congestion, improved
mobility, environmental and social impact assessments, efficient transport system and
safety awareness were the criteria to consider. Furthermore, according to the European
Directive 2008/96/EC:
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 15 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
“Thus, safety must be integrated in all phases of planning, design and operation of road
infrastructure. It must be regarded in its own right and separately from economic and
environmental analysis.”
However, within sustainable road safety the priority is given to sustainable versus ethical
approach to road safety which implies the consideration of economical and environmental
factors in a complementing rather than opposed approach. After the public consultation
took place, the response given by the UK Department for Transport was as follows:
“In our opinion it is important that Road Safety Impact Assessment is not seen to mean
achieving improved safety at any cost, nor without considering the many competing
objectives that the promotor of any road infrastructures project has to consider. For
example, whilst it may be physically possible to achieve improved levels of road safety
when realigning a road, it would be not appropriate to set the unrealistic target for safety
where this may compromise other objectives or EU laws, such as protecting vital
habitats”
This opinion supports the sustainable approach to road safety measures proposed here.
Based on the above, it seems logical to define the stakeholders and their criteria as a
group that shares responsibility and reaches for the same goal, rather than different
groups responsible for the implementation of a certain road safety measure. Moreover,
sustainability implies interaction and co-dependency of different elements aimed at the
improvement of the whole process. In order to appropriately assess the impacts of road
safety measures, an in-depth understanding of each stakeholder group’s objectives is
critical. The stakeholder analysis has already taken place during the pan-European
project Infrastructure and Safety (IN-SAFETY), an EU funded project under the
framework program in which 29 partners from 12 different countries participated (De
Brucker et al. 2008). For the definition of criteria, a two-step procedure was followed.
First, a workshop with leading experts coming from IN-SAFETY consortium partners was
organized. In the second step the draft was presented to a forum of public policy makers,
users and manufactures for public validation. After an extensive analysis and discussions
in workshops the following stakeholders have been identified, namely 1) the users, 2)
society/public policy makers and 3) manufacturers. Within each group the subcategories
have been identified: drivers, fleet owners and emergency centers, authorities and road
managers, car manufactures, equipment manufactures, system providers and content
providers. This classification is based on common objectives and preferences. Within the
framework of this project several workshops have taken place and the final set of criteria
has been proposed:
Road user
• Driver comfort
• Full user cost
• Traffic safety
• Travel time
Society/public policy makers
• Network efficiency
• Overall safety
• Socio-political acceptance
• Public expenditure and environmental effects
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 16 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
Automotive manufacturer/industry
• Investment risk
• Liability risk
• Technical feasibility
Within the scope of another pan-European project called ‘Action for advanced Driver
assistance and Vehicle control systems Implementation, Standardization, Optimum use of
the Road network and Safety’ (ADVISORS) whose purpose was to assess the impact of
different types and different levels of penetration of advanced driver assistance systems
(ADAS) in terms of safety, efficiency and environmental performance of the road
transport system, similar stakeholders were identified. The initial classification was made
in the first workpackage meeting in Brussels (April 2002). Later, this work was completed
by e-mail voting. The group of stakeholders was selected based on the assumption that
they have an extensive view of both the problems related to traffic and the different
ADAS-systems. System manufactures, vehicle manufactures, transport ministries, road
authorities and fleet managers were selected as the main stakeholders. In addition, other
relevant stakeholders were classified as umbrella organizations, namely consumer,
private driver, taxi associations, public transport association, EU, governments and policy
makers (concerning vehicles), road operators, insurance companies, car rental
companies as well as researchers and consultants. After a thorough analysis, the various
stakeholders were pulled into three groups which are as follows (Macharis 2004c):
• The ADAS users (individual drivers, fleet owners, etc.)
• Society as a whole (local and national public agencies, other drivers, weak road
users such as pedestrians)
• The ADAS producers/sellers (system and car manufacturers)
The opinions of the parties involved were collected mainly via the telephone interviews.
Moreover, this measure has been assessed in terms of driver’s performance,
environmental issues and road network efficiency. Based on the identified stakeholders
objectives, the following criteria were defined (Macharis et. al 2004c):
Road user
• The full user cost: monetary cost of the ADAS to be paid by the user (includes
purchasing and operating costs)
• Driver comfort: changes in driving comfort from the point of view of the driver
• Driver safety: safety effects for the user of the system
• Travel time duration
Society as a whole
• Public expenditures linked to ADAS introduction
• Environmental effects (impacts on emissions, noise, etc.)
• Third party safety
• Network efficiency
• Acceptability
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 17 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
Manufactures
• Technical feasibility
• Acceptance risk
In the domain of vehicle technology (active safety) the alcolock implementation in
European Union was assessed based on an in-depth qualitative field trial from 2004-2006
(Alcolock 2004, EU). The general objective of the project was to contribute to a number
of road victims by preparing and facilitating legal implementation of alcolocks through
research on the psychological, behavioral and practical impact on drivers whose vehicles
are equipped with an alcolock. A qualitative field trial was conducted in four European
countries. Five groups of drivers, Norwegian and Spanish bus drivers, German truck
drivers and Belgian drink driving offenders and alcohol dependent patients, drove for one
year with the system. After a one year trial the drivers and their social surroundings were
interviewed. The general acceptance of the alcolocks was good. From the interviews it
appeared that the truck drivers’ clients reacted rather indifferently while bus passengers
had a positive attitude towards the devices. Overall the results showed that it is feasible
to implement alcolocks in commercial and non-commercial contexts provided that the
inclusion process and the monitoring procedures are carefully prepared. To assess the
practical impact of the alcolock the daily use of the devices was studied. To assess the
psychological impact of the alcolock, the drivers’ expectations, ideas and attitudes
towards the alcolocks were studied. To assess the social impact of the alcolocks the
reactions of the drivers’ social environment, such as persons living together with the
drivers, clients of professional drivers etc. were analysed. However, it appeared that the
use of the devices is very costly, therefore additional subsidies are needed in order to
encourage its implementation.
In the course of the trial three different types of data were collected:
1) behavioural measurements registered by the alcolock’s data logger
2) the drivers’ and related subjects’ answers to standardized questionnaires
3) the feedback provided by the collaborating partners and stakeholders in each of the national trials.
The questionnaires translated the specific objectives of the project into standardized
questions. Among the participants two groups can be distinguished. The first group
comprises of bus drivers, truck drivers, drink-driving offenders and alcohol dependent
patients. Justice department, company management, psychiatrists, driver’s social
environment and manufactures belong to the second group. This classification is to be
simplified further with the following criteria:
Government/Justice Department
• Ethical and social acceptance
• Incentives
• Cost-effectiveness
• Measures efficiency
The alcolock user
• Privacy
• State awareness
• Full-user cost
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 18 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
• Third party safety
Manufacturer
• Cost effectiveness
• Technical feasibility
• Social acceptance
Society as a whole (driver’s social environment, company management, health
professionals, passengers)
• Acceptance from the drivers
• Competitive advantage
• Safety
It should be mentioned that the implementation of the alcolocks raises important ethical
issues. Some participants declared to have been embarrassed on many occasions when
outsiders saw them using the alcolock. Companies management were concerned with the
suspicion of drinking and driving created among the drivers. Thus the ethical criteria play
a major role in this assessment.
Within the framework of training and education in 2003 the European Commission
tendered a project called ROSE 25 to investigate the situation of Road Safety Education
(RSE) in all 25 Member States. The main purpose was to collect measures of good
practice in RSE for children and teenagers in the Member States. The target groups were
children and teenagers aged 3 to 17, moped users and pre-drivers, parents (especially
parents of ‘smaller’ children aged 0 to 3). The data collected in the course of the project
include 27 school curricula, 114 media sorted by mode of traffic participation, and by
media type, 193 other actions. The collected measures are shown in Table 3:
Table 3: Collected measures
Actions (within and outside of the
school system)
Media
Pedestrians
Cyclists
Car Passengers
Moped users
Pre-drivers
Users of public transport/school bus
Inline skating & scooters
‘General’ RSE actions with a broad focus
(including all modes of traffic
participation)
Books/booklets
Collections of games
CDs/MC
Films/videotapes
CD-ROM
Internet
Radio/TV
Source: ROSE 25, EU (2003)
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 19 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
The selection of examples consisted of three steps:
1) Definition of selection criteria
2) Based on these selection criteria, the selection of good practices (actions and media) that were performed in the EU. A description and assessment of each
measure using a standardized questionnaire was provided.
3) The final step was analysis of all actions and media, also taking recent evaluation
studies into account
It is evident that the different development paths of school systems, and the differences
in traffic, mentalities, cultures and administrations have all led to a wide variety of RSE
initiatives. The following objectives are distinguished:
• Prioritization of RSE and strengthening its role in public
• Strong coordination of all potential partners
• Prioritization of RSE at school and kindergarten - making RSE visible in
curricula
• Promoting synergies and combinations of road safety education and
mobility education
• Addressing teenagers as risk group
• Promoting the involvement of parents
• Promoting synergies and combinations of education with enforcement and
engineering
In ideal cases, RSE includes elements of Mobility Education. RSE intends to provide basic
life skills and to promote safety-oriented attitudes, whereas mobility education seeks to
stimulate changes in mobility patterns towards more ecological and more sustainable
forms of transport. Such an integrated approach adds on to sustainable road safety.
Therefore, the following group of stakeholders and their criteria can be defined while
taking into account all the factors previously mentioned:
Government (authorities)
• Public awareness of the role of RSE and its function
• An effective operational framework (promoting synergies and combinations of
education with enforcement and engineering, promoting partnerships within the
network)
• Integrated approach towards safe behaviour
• Strengthening research, evaluation and quality control
Parents
• Cost effectiveness due to parents acting as volunteers
• Level of interaction with children
• Role model for children
Target group (car passengers, pedestrians, cyclists, users of public and school transport,
moped users, pre-drivers, children, young people, elderly people, cyclists)
• Traffic safety
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 20 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
• Social behaviour and correct attitudes
Educational services (traffic police, healthcare centers, schools, kindergarten,
associations)
• Addressing the right target group
• Parents involvement
• Promoting safe behaviour, social responsibility and self-evaluation
• Prioritization of RSE, making RSE visible in curricula
Country reports have been submitted and a list of main stakeholders was mentioned
within traffic education. In Belgium and specifically in Flanders the following parties are
involved in designing and implementing training and education:
• The teachers responsible for RSE
• The police: local municipal or urban police (with their own education center) or
the federal police with the “department education and prevention”, among which
the mobile traffic parks for fundamental education for each province and teachers
for the secondary grade
• Representatives of associations (cyclers association, etc.)
• Flemish Traffic Foundation (Vlaams Stichting Verkeerskunde)
The foundation concentrates on trainings within the field of “traffic”. It assembles the
players in a “Stuurgroep onderwijs” (advisory committee education), meant to stimulate
and support traffic and mobility education.
• Belgian Road Safety Institute (Belgisch Instituut voor Verkeersveiligheid)
The institute aims to develop and diffuse the educative material and logistic support to
schools wanting to develop RSE actions.
• VerkeerPedagogisch Instituut
This institute was founded by a teacher with the intention to provide material and
knowledge for RSE. Their work consists of traffic education and school traffic and
providing information about these topics (e.g. teaching material for kindergartens,
primary and secondary schools, …). School traffic in the broadest sense of the word is
their scope: traffic and mobility education, traffic policy and road safety (source:
www.verkeervpi.be).
Another good example is the Dutch system.
The Netherlands
In the Netherlands the road safety education is based on the concept of “Life long
learning”. This means that during a person’s life at important shifts in modes of traffic
participation, people will have to receive the road safety education which is necessary for
participating in traffic in a safe way. Among the main stakeholders in pre-school and
school education are pointed out the following:
• Traffic police
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 21 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
Traffic police can provide a lot of information when it comes to traffic rules and police enforcement.
• The Dutch Road Safety Organisation 3VO
This organization has developed a lot of information material for all age groups such as
leaflets and posters.
• Education Support Service
Education support services carry out all kinds of support activities in the field of
education and teaching methods. They can provide professional support for schools and
teachers in implementing new teaching methods.
Finally and before making our suggestions, a brief overview of the project called “New
Road Construction Concepts (NR2C)” will be given. Our choice is not accidental since this
project develops long-term perspectives, pilot projects and research recommendations,
linking long-term visions and ideas to short-term actions. This project supported by the
European Commission is based on a vision that reflects society’s perception of road
infrastructure in the year 2040. It aims to identify and define the research required in the
field of road engineering to guarantee comfortable and reliable transport in a sustainable
and environmental-friendly way for the coming future. This Vision 2040 describes how
society may look in the year 2040 by focusing on changes in road concepts as a result of
future needs and demands initiated by social and economic developments combined with
technical advances. Therefore the importance of the stakeholders and their interests is
undeniable in generating future-oriented initiatives by short-term actions. In road safety
the sustainable safety approach is a good example of a long-term vision.
Furthermore the sustainable safety vision offers the possibility of getting attention paid to
a sustainable society that promotes the quality of life whose indicators are presented in
Table 4:
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 22 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
Table 4: Description and importance ratings of 22 quality-of-life indicators.
Source: Steg and Gifford (2005)
As it can be seen the highest score was given to the ethical criteria such as freedom,
privacy, social justice, safety and environmental quality. Many agree that sustainability
plays an important role in the design of every system. However, little is known about
which criteria should be used for sustainability. The effects of policies aimed at
stimulating sustainable road safety should be also concerned with human needs and
values. Therefore, the policy-makers should especially consider possible impacts on the
most important indicators when implementing road safety measures because the public
will negatively evaluate the measures that oppose to these indicators. In other words
every measure should consider the criteria that would reflect economic efficiency,
societal and individual quality of life such as health and safety and effects on
environmental qualities such as resource use, emissions and waste, water and air.
Based on this figure we believe that the presented indicators are useful for assessing the
future impacts of road safety measures. By applying a multi-actor multi-criteria analysis
the decision makers are able to see what quality of life indicators would improve or would
deteriorate after the implementation of a road safety measure. In addition the
importance of the different criteria is mentioned in the table above.
In case of law enforcement and vehicle related measures it would be advisable to take
into account such indicators as privacy, freedom, social justice, security and
environmental quality. Restrictions in freedom of choice might lead to negative
perception of the proposed measure. While within road infrustracture nature and bio-
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 23 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
diversity would be given preference by the society as a whole in addition to an efficient
network.
4.5 The stakeholders and their criteria
Taking into account the haddon matrix, the previous cases and the sustainable safety
approach, the following stakeholders and their criteria are proposed within road safety
measures.
Table 5: Stakeholders in the Haddon matrix
Human Vehicle and
Equipment
Environment
Precrash
Accident
prevention
Educational services Government Road manufacturers
Road Users Users Government
Government Vehicle
manufacturers
Society
Road users
Crash
Injury
prevention
during
accident
Road users Vehicle
manufacturers
Road manufacturers
Government
Vehicle users Road users
Postcrash
Life
conservation,
care
Government Vehicle
manufacturers
Road manufacturers
Government
Road manufacturers Society
Government
Source: Own setup
In the matrix, only the main stakeholders are being retained. However, it could be
argued that other stakeholders also exist, e.g. the police, emergency services and other
organizations such as GOCA (umbrella organization for the technical inspection of
vehicles). For simplicity these are placed under the different main stakeholder groups.
The emergency services and police are placed under government, because of the general
role they play in the society and because the government is, directly or indirectly, their
employer. Besides, for emergency services it is irrelevant whether or not a measure is
implemented, because they are always expected to make every effort to help victims of
road accidents. GOCA is also counted among the government, since an annual technical
vehicle inspection is obligated by law for all registered vehicles older than four years,
some exceptions excluded (www.wegcode.be).
Stakeholders will be listed by type of measure, i.e. user related measures, vehicle related
measures and infrastructure related measures. A table with the criteria and their
explanation will be given for every stakeholder.
4.5.1 User related measures
• Stakeholder: Road users
This is the target group on which the measure applies. This can be car drivers and
passengers, but also pedestrians, cyclists, users of public transportation, moped
users, pre-drivers, children, elderly people, etc.
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 24 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
Criteria Description of the criteria
Traffic safety
Changes in traffic safety for the road users, the target group
of the measure. Not only the risk for the road user to get
hurt, but also the risk that he or she might hurt someone else
in an accident.
Social behavior
and correct
attitudes
Changes in behavior and attitude will result in changes in risk
awareness, personal safety and the safety of the other road
users.
Cost What is the cost for the road user? (E.g. A course he has to
follow, etc.) Everybody has to be able to pay for the
necessary education.
(Travel) time
Some road users will associate driving more carefully with a
longer travel time. They can also see an eventual course on
how to drive safer as a loss of time.
Freedom and
privacy
Limitations in freedom, the ability to decide for yourself, and
privacy, the opportunity to be yourself, will lead to a negative
perception of a particular measure. This can be the case if the
measure imposes something on the road user.
• Stakeholder: Government
Local and federal authorities can focus on improving road safety education and
awareness, but also on the enforcement of traffic rules. This can be done with
intensified efforts aimed at promoting behavior concerning speed, alcohol, wearing
seatbelt, etc. Police (and other emergency services) as a stakeholder can also be
placed under this header.
Criteria Description of the criteria
Overall safety
The changes in the overall traffic safety due to the user
related measure and not just the changes in safety of the
target group. A measure can, for instance, have a positive
impact on the safety of car drivers, but in the meantime have
a greater negative impact on the safety of the other road
users. The overall safety in this situation has worsened, so the
measure does not have a positive effect.
To what extent does the measure have an impact on reducing
the number of accidents? Does the measure decrease the
number of deaths and fatally wounded victims? Does it
decrease the number of heavily and lightly injured victims?
Cost of the
measure
Money outlay necessary to implement the new measure, in
this case this is the money outlay necessary for the campaign,
enforcement action or education.
Implementation
period
This is the time necessary to implement the measure. In
general, a shorter implementation period is preferred to a
longer one.
Socio-political
and ethical
This represents the societal acceptability of the measure by
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 25 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
acceptance the users/decision makers.
Livability
Quality of life (freedom, privacy, social justice, education):
Limitations in, for instance, freedom of choice, will lead to a
negative perception of a particular measure, so the
government has to take into account the quality-of-life-
indicators presented in table 5.
• Stakeholder: Educational services
Educational services and instances that are responsible for the spreading of the
campaign (traffic police, school, local authorities, companies, media, etc.). Also
istances such as Vlaamse Stichting Verkeerskunde (VSV), Verkeerspedagogisch
Instituut (VPI), etc. may be placed under the header educational services.
Criteria Description of the criteria
Feasibility Is the incorporation of Road Safety Education (RSE) into
school curricula feasible? In primary schools, traffic education
is often already implemented in the curriculum. But in
secondary schools not enough attention is paid to RSE, and
thus it is not always incorporated into the curriculum. This
while teenagers are in fact a high risk group (they are
learning how to drive a car, they are driving mopeds, etc.)
Cost Budgetary constraint resulting in lack of materials, frustrated
teachers due to low wages or police officers who, due to staff
shortages, have to focus on their core business, which is not
RSE.
Addressing the
right target
group
Road safety education, especially outside schools, often has
the form of campaigns, and is not in direct contact with the
target group. These campaigns should thus reach the right
target group. To what extent does the measure lose its
efficiency if the right target group is not reached?
Safe behavior,
social
responsibility &
self-evaluation
To what extent does the campaign or road safety education
program promote such behavior?
4.5.2 Vehicle related measures
• Stakeholder: Users
Only the road users who already use the new system, the others are third party.
Criteria Description of the criteria
Acceptance Does the implementation of the system causes any important
ethical issues? (E.g. Alcolock: see p. 20)
Driver comfort This represents the difference in comfort from the point of
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 26 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
view of the car driver/system user.
Driver safety Impact on the safety of the car driver/system user and the
risk to hurt someone else in an accident. Does the user drive
safer and more carefully after the implementation of the
system?
Full user cost Monetary cost of the system to be paid by the user, this
includes purchasing- and operating costs.
Travel time More efficient performance of the road transport network and
increased capacity, due to safer traffic as a result of the
implementation of the vehicle related measure, lead to less
travel time. Does the new system lead to a travel time
reduction?
Quality of life This represents the changes in e.g. privacy or state
awareness from the point of view from the users of the
system.
• Stakeholder: Manufacturers
Criteria Description of the criteria
Acceptance risk Do the consumers accept the system or do they have some
important ethical issues about it?
Cost-
effectiveness
Is it worth the risk of the investment?
Technical
feasibility
The risk of failure to develop the desired system and to
implement it into the newly manufactured cars.
• Stakeholder: Government/Society as a whole
Concerning vehicle related measures, next to the local and federal authorities,
GOCA (technical vehicle inspection) is also part of this stakeholder group, since an
annual technical inspection is obligated by law for vehicles older than four years.
Criteria Description of the criteria
Ethical and
social
acceptance
This represents the social acceptability of the measure by the
users and their surroundings.
Quality of life Does the implementation of the vehicle related measure
change the quality of life of the system users and/or of their
surroundings (family, friends, colleagues, etc.)
Overall safety This represents the efficiency of the measure. To what extent
does the measure have an impact on reducing the number of
accidents? Does the measure decrease the number of deaths
and fatally wounded victims? Does it decrease the number of
heavily and lightly injured victims? The expected effects on
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 27 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
the safety of other road users and especially vulnerable road
users, such as pedestrians and cyclists, are also important for
the government and the society.
Public
expenditure
Money outlay necessary to implement the new system,
including investments in infrastructure and support measures
such as educational campaigns to promote the use of the new
system.
Environmental
effects
Effects on the environment caused by the new system such as
more noise, more emissions, etc. It is one of the main goals
of the government to increase the traffic livability by reducing
the damage to the environment and nature, even if mobility is
increasing.
Implementation
period
This is the time necessary to implement the measure. Faster
feasible measures are preferred to measures which require a
longer implementation period in equal conditions for expected
impact, cost, etc. This also means that a measure with very
beneficial expected effects, even if it has a longer
implementation period, will still be selected and that the
implementation will start.
Network
efficiency
More efficient performance of the road transport network and
increased safety, which results in less congestion, faster
travel times, etc.
4.5.3 Infrastructure related measures
• Stakeholder: Road users
Criteria Description of the criteria
Travel time The time lost by road users due to detours as a result of the
infrastructure change. Another reason for travel time losses
can be the obligation to drive less fast as a result of the
infrastructure (E.g. 30 zone, speed bumps, etc.). On the other
hand, if the new infrastructure is a reason for less accidents
and congestion, the driver has to spend less time on the road.
Comfort These are the changes in comfort from the point of view of
the driver due to the implementation of the measure.
Safety The difference in the number of road accidents in comparison
with the situation before the implementation of the
infrastructure related measure. Impact on the safety of the
driver and the risk to hurt someone else in an accident.
Fuel
consumption
If the infrastructure related measure has a positive impact on
travel time, less fuel will be used (until a speed of
approximately 110 km/h), and conversely (Working Paper,
2008). Maybe the driver has to slow down and accelerate
again due to infrastructure change, which results in more fuel
consumption.
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 28 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
• Stakeholder: Government/Society as a whole
Criteria Description of the criteria
Accessibility Accessibility is one of the main objectives described in the
mobility plan of the government. They want to maintain the
current accessibility on a sustainable manner. The
infrastructure related measure should target not to
compromise this objective.
Livability Quality of life (nature and biodiversity, environmental
quality): The impact of the measure on secondary effects
such as emissions, noise, the view, etc, which can all be
positive or negative. One of the objectives of the government
regarding mobility is to decrease the damage to environment
and nature, even though mobility is increasing.
Cost – Public
expenditure
How much does it cost to implement the measure? Does the
measure improve the traffic safety to the extent that it is
worth the investment?
Overall safety The difference in the number of road accidents, fatalities and
heavily injured victims in comparison with the situation before
the implementation of the infrastructure related measure.
Network
efficiency –
efficiency of the
measure
More efficient performance of the road transport network and
increased safety, which results in less congestion, faster
travel times, etc.
Implementation
period
Time necessary to implement the measure. Faster feasible
measures are preferred to measures which require a longer
implementation period in equal conditions for expected
impact, cost, etc. This also means that a measure with very
beneficial effects, even if it has a longer implementation
period, will still be selected and that the implementation will
start.
Functionality Each road is related to just one task in a hierarchical
structured road network. Roads should flow (flow roads),
provide access (access roads) or connect other roads
(distributor roads). This mono-functionality minimizes the
number of potential accidents with a potential serious
outcome on a specific road.
Homogeneous
use
Encounters with large differences in speed, direction and mass
should be avoided, making the outcome of any collision much
less severe.
Predictable use This is aimed at preventing any human error by providing a
recognizable road design for all road users. It clarifies the
road course and the behavior of all road users and decreases
the number of collisions.
Forgiveness If an accident occurs, the environment must be designed so
that injury severity is as low as possible.
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 29 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
Acceptance rate Do the road users accept the changes in road infrastructure?
The compliance of a measure will be grater if some
restrictions apply only under special circumstances such as
school hours, rain, peak hours, etc. One such measure are the
so-called ‘intelligent traffic signs’.
• Stakeholder: Manufacturers/Industry
Criteria Description of the criteria
Cost-
effectiveness
Is it worth the ‘investment’?
Liability If, after the realization of the infrastructure related measure,
something goes wrong, is wrong, or is not made
appropriately, so there are still accidents with heavily injured
and fatalities, to what extent is this the responsibility of the
manufacturers/industry?
Technical
feasibility
Is it possible to build the adjustments in the road
infrastructure in time?
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 30 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
5. CONCLUSION
This report is the next step in the long-term research into the development of a decision
support model for the evaluation of road safety measures. To achieve this, the
development of a Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis (MAMCA) is launched, which, in the
context of the evaluation of road safety measures, seems to have an advantage against
other existing socio-economic evaluation methods.
To this end, we began by arguing that the systematic approach to road safety calls for
the introduction of the concept of sustainability and leads to a new map of stakeholders
and their criteria when assessing the effectiveness of measures. The analysis of
measures in education and training underlines the importance of attitudinal change
rather than the importance of the improved skill and knowledge. Within enforcement a
more ethical approach is suggested. This approach includes such criteria as privacy and
responsibility as well as moral justification of legal restrictions on personal liberty.
Engineering becomes sustainable and aims to fulfill the requirements of the government,
the citizen and the urban environment. It is argued that holistically linking and
integrating the road safety measures leads to better definitions of stakeholders and their
criteria.
Finally, combining ethical perspectives and road safety measures with active participation
of stakeholders will enable the policy makers to make better decisions by evaluating the
alternatives in a consistent way. As a result, road safety has become an ethical issue
which calls for the introduction of ethical criteria and new evaluation methods. Thus the
Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis is proposed given that many effects of the road safety
measures cannot be translated into monetary terms. It is suggested to hold face-to-face
interviews with the main stakeholders in order to allow respondents to argue their scores
on different criteria. Another option would be to organize workshops in order the
stakeholders could express their preferences.
Furthermore one should bear in mind that the new approach to road safety introduced a
new share of responsibility. Therefore the main objective changed from preventing road
accidents to analysing the effects of safety measures on the main stakeholders. This in
turn extends the traditional approach to road safety to 4Es: enforcement, education,
engineering and ethical decision making.
5.1 Future Research
This report is the sequel of reports written in 2008 and 2009 regarding the value of using
the MAMCA in the evaluation of road safety measures (Ampe et al, 2008a), the
bottlenecks encountered within the formatting of the indicators in the context of road
safety (Van Lier et al, 2008) and a literature study about socio-economic evaluation
methods for traffic safety (Ampe et al, 2008b).
In 2010 the construction of this evaluation method (the MAMCA) will be finalized by
determining which indicators will be used to valorize the different criteria. Thus for each
criterion, the most suited indicator will be appointed. This is very important because
different indicators can be appointed to one criterion, which could give a different value
to the criterion (e.g. congestion pricing could be valued according to the travelled
distance or the time spent on travelling). A good, substantiated choice for each indicator
is therefore desirable. Afterwards some cases will be performed using the MAMCA-
methodology, but also using other socio-economic evaluation techniques such as the
social cost-benefit analysis, the cost-effectiveness analysis and the conventional multi-
criteria analysis. These other evaluation techniques can be useful when the MAMCA is not
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 31 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
preferred as the ideal decision method. To decide which evaluation should be used a
decision tree was set up in Work Package 5.2 (Van Malderen & Macharis, 2009a; Van
Malderen & Macharis, 2009b)
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 32 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
REFERENCES
Achterkamp M., Vos, de J., (2008). Investigating the use of the stakeholder notion in
project management literature, a meta-analysis, International Journal of Project
Management, 26 (7), pp. 749-757
Achterkamp M., Vos, de J., (2007). Critically Identifying Stakeholders. Evaluating
boundry critique as a vehicle for stakeholder identification. Systems Research and
Behavioral Science, 24, pp. 3-14
Alcolock, (2004-2006). Belgian Road Safety Institute, Deliverable 2, Description, results
and discussion of the alcolock field trial. Alcolock implementation in the European Union.
Ampe J., Geudens T. & Macharis C. 2008a. Socio-economische evaluatiemethoden voor
verkeersveiligheid: Tussentijds vergelijkend rapport, literatuurstudie. Steunpuntrapport
RA-MOW-2008-005. Diepenbeek, België: Steunpunt Mobiliteit en Openbare Werken – spoor Verkeersveiligheid.
Ampe J., Geudens T. & Macharis C. 2008b. Multi-Criteria Analyse an Multi-Actor Multi-
Criteria Analyse: Mogelijke meerwaarde voor de evaluatie van
verkeersveiligheidsmaatregelen. Steunpuntrapport RA-MOW-2008-009. Diepenbeek, België: Steunpunt Mobiliteit en Openbare Werken – spoor Verkeersveiligheid.
Banister, D., Stead, D., Steen, P., (e.a.), (2000). European Policy and Sustainable
Mobility, London: Spon, 255 p.
Banville C., Landry M., Martel J.-M., Boulaire C. (1998). A Stakeholder Approach to
MCDA. System Research, 15, pp. 15-32.
Beatly, T., (1995). The many meanings of sustainability, Journal of Planning Literature, 9
(4), pp. 339-342a
Beierle T.C. (2002). The quality of stakeholder-based decisions, Risk Analysis 22, (4), pp.
739-749.
Bouyssou, D., (1990). Building criteria: a prerequisite for MCDA. In Bana e Costa, C. A.
(ed.), Readings in Multiple Criteria Decision Aid (pp. 58-80), Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Brugha, R., Varvasovszky, Z., (2000). Stakeholder Analysis: a review. Health policy and
planning, 15 (3), pp. 239-246
Bryson, J., (2003). What to do when stakeholders matter: a guide to stakeholder
identification, analysis and influence techniques, A paper presented at the London School
of Economics and Political Science 10 February 2003.
Croft, P., (2005). Sustainable road safety engineering. European Transport Conference
Proceedings, available at: http://etcproceedings.org/paper/sustainable-road-safety-
engineering
Daniels, S. & K. Van Hout, (2006), Towards a Road Safety Plan for Flanders-Belgium,
Belarus, Minsk, 19th ICTCT workshop.
De Brucker K., C. Macharis, M. Wiethoff and V. Marchau (2008). A strategic analsysis of
stakeholder preferences regarding the design of innovative road safety measures. Results
from the pan-European IN-SAFETY project regarding forgiving and self-explaining road
environments. HUB Research Paper 2008/42.
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 33 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
De Brucker, K., C. Macharis, A. Verbeke and E. Bekiaris (2002). ‘Integrated multi-criteria
analysis for advanced driver assistance systems’, Final Deliverable of the research project
for the Shared-cost RTD project ‘Action for advanced Driver assistance and Vehicle
control systems Implementation, Standardisation, Optimum use of the Road network and
Safety’ (ADVISORS), available at: www.advisors.iao.fhg.de
Donaldson, T., L. Preston, (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concept,
evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20 (1), pp. 65-91
Dooms, M., C. Macharis, A. Verbeke (2004). Proactive stakeholder management in the
port planning process: empirical evidence from the port of Brussels. Available at:
http://biblioteca.universia.net/irARecurso.do?page=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-
sre.wuwien.ac.at%2Fersa%2Fersaconfs%2Fersa04%2FPDF%2F271.pdf&id=39969339
Dragutinovic, N. & D. Twisk (2006). Effectiveness of traffic education; A Literature
review: SWOV-rapport R-2006-6. Leidschendam, Nederland: SWOV.
Elvik, R., Vaa, T. ( 2004). The Handbook of Road Safety Measures, Amsterdam: Elsevier,
1078 p.
Elvebakk, B., (2005). Ethics and road safety policy, Report 786, Institute of Transport
Economics, Oslo
Fontela, P., Soria, A., Mielgo, J., Sierra, J.F., de Blas, J., Gauchia, L., Martinez, J.M.
(2007). Airport electric vehicle powered by a fuel cell. Journal of power sources, 169 (1),
pp. 184-193
Freeman, R., (1984). Strategic Management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Genard, J-L., and Pirlot, M., (2002). Multi-criteria decision aid in a philosophical
perspective, In: Bouyssou, D. et al., (ed.) Aiding decisions with multiple criteria. Essays
in honor of Bernard Ro (pp. 89-120), Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
Geurs, K.T., Van Wee, G.(2000). Environmentally Sustainable Transport: Implementation
and Impacts for the Netherlands for 2030, RIVM, Belthoven, the Netherlands.
Geudens, T. Macharis, C. Plastria, F. & Crompvoets, J. (2009). An evaluation framework
for the optimization of the spatial data infrastructure in Flanders. International Journal of
Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, submitted for publication.
Goodpaster, K., (1991). Business Ethics and stakeholder Analysis. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 1, pp. 53-73
Gray, C., (ed.), (1999). The Philosophy of Law: an encyclopedia, New York: Garland, 2
volumes.
Haddon, W. (1968). The changing approach to the epidemiology, prevention, and
amelioration of trauma: the transition to approaches etiologically rather than
descriptively based. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 58, pp. 1431-1438.
Hayek, F., von (1985). Law, Legislation and Liberty: a new Statement of the Liberal
Principles of Justice and Political Economy. Volume 1: Rules and Order, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Hill, C., T. Jones (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 29
(2), pp. 131-154
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 34 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
Hof, A. & Vermeulen, J. (2001). Maatschappelijke kosten van ongevallen met
vrachtauto’s buiten de bebouwde kom, Delft: CE.
Kaler, J., (2003). Differentiating Stakeholder Theories. Journal of Business Ethics, 46 (1),
pp. 71-83
Keeney R. (1996). Value-Focused Thinking. A Path to Creative Decisionmaking.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Kohler, J., (2006). Transport and the environment: the need for policy for long-term
radical change. IET Proceedings Intelligent Transport Systems, 153 (4), pp. 292-301
Kunsch, P; M.Theys, J. Brans (2007). The importance of systems thinking in ethical and
sustainable decision-making. Central European Journal of Operational Research, 15, pp.
253-269
Kunsch, P;, I. Kavathatzopoulos, F. Rauschmayer, (2009). Modelling complex ethical
decision problems with operations research. Omega, 37 (6), pp. 1100-1108
Macharis, C. (2004a). The importance of stakeholder analysis in freight transport: The
MAMCA methodology. European Transport, (25-26), pp. 114-126
Macharis, C. (2004b). Multi-criteria analysis as a tool to include stakeholders in project
evaluation: the MAMCA method. In E. Haezendonck (ed.), Transport Project Evaluation,
Extending the Social Cost-Benefit Approach (pp. 115-131), Vrije Universiteit Brussel and
Universiteit Antwerpen.
Macharis, C., A. Verbeke, K. De Brucker (2004c). The strategic evaluation of new
technologies through multicriteria analysis: the ADVISORS case, Research in
Transportation Economics, 8, pp.443-462.
Maesen, K., T. Steenberghen, T. Dufays (2001). Impact of Spatial Planning on
Sustainable Traffic Safety: Belgian Situaion Analysis. Summary report MD/01/041.
Available at: www.belspo.be
Malaterre, G., (2006). The act of driving, In: Research and road safety. Towards Renew
Public Action. Program for Research, Experimentation and Innovation in Land Transport,
Operational group 3. New knowledge for safety. Publications de la MSH-ALPES.
Mayhew, D., H. Simpson, A. Robinson (2002). The safety value of driver education and
training. Injury Prevention 8 (Supplement 2), pp. ii3-ii8.
Mill, J., Wollheim, R., (ed.), (1984). Three essays: on liberty, representative government.
The subjection of women. Oxford.
Mitchell, Ronald K., Bradley R. Agle, and Donna J. Wood, (1997). Toward a theory of
stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really
counts, Academy of Management Review, 22 (4), pp. 853-886.
MOW. (2008). Verkeersveiligheidsplan Vlaanderen. Brussels: Vlaams ministerie van
Mobiliteit en Openbare Werken.
MVG, (2003). Ontwerp mobiliteitsplan Vlaanderen. Naar een duurzame mobiliteit in
Vlaanderen. Brussel: Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap.
NR2C-New Road Construction Concepts, available at: http://nr2c.fehrl.org
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 35 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
Pouloudi, A., (1997). Stakeholder analysis as a front-end to knowledge elicitation, AI and
Society, 11, pp. 122-137.
Sayers T. H., Jessop A. T., Hills P.J., (2003). Multi-criteria evaluation of transport
options-flexible, transparent and user-friendly? Transport policy, 10, pp. 95-105.
ROSE 25, (2003). Inventory and compiling of a European Good practice Guide on road
safety education targeted at young people, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/rose25/index_en.htm
SARTRE 3, (2002-2004). Project on social attitudes towards road traffic risk in Europe,
available at: http://sartre.inrets.fr/
Sharp, R, Finkelstein, A, Galal, G (1999). Stakeholder Identification in Requirements
Engineering Process, Database and Expert Systems Applications, Proceedings, pp.387-
391
Steg, L., R.Gifford (2005). Sustainable transportation and quality of life, Journal of
Transport Geography, 13, pp. 59-69.
Steenberghen, T., Dufays, T. (1999). Impact of spatial planning on sustainable traffic
safety, Belgian situation analysis, Second European Road Research Conference, 7-
9/6/1999. 14 pp.
SVR. (2009). Vrind 2009. Vlaamse Regionale Indicatoren. Brussel: Studiedienst van de
Vlaamse Regering. Available at: http://www4.vlaanderen.be/dar/svr/Pages/2009-07-01-
vrind2009.aspx
SWOV (2010). Duurzaam Veilig: uitgangspunten, misverstanden en relatie met andere
visies. Leidschendam: Stichting Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Verkeersveiligheid.
Tingvall, C., Haworth , N., (1999). Vision Zero-An ethical approach to safety and
mobility, 6th International Conference in Road Safety and Traffic Enforcement: Beyond
2000, Melbourne. Available at:
http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/papers/visionzero.html, cited 24 May 2009.
TREN 3 E Road Infrastructure Safety Management Trans-European Network-Consultation Paper TREN 3E, 2006, http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety
Ulrich, W., (1987). Critical heuristics of social system design. European Journal of
Operational Research, 31; vol. 3, pp. 276-283
Van Lier, T. Van Malderen, F. & Macharis, C. (2009). Indicatoren bij de beoordeling van
verkeersveiligheidsmaatregelen. Knelpunten en mogelijke oplossingen. Steunpuntrapport
RA-MOW-2009-002 Diepenbeek, België: Steunpunt Mobiliteit en Openbare Werken – spoor Verkeersveiligheid.
Van Malderen F. & Macharis C. 2009a. Handleiding voor het evalueren van
verkeersveiligheidsmaatregelen: Een eerste aanzet. Steunpuntrapport RA-MOW-2009-
003. Diepenbeek, België: Steunpunt Mobiliteit en Openbare Werken – spoor Verkeersveiligheid.
Van Malderen F. & Macharis C. 2009b. Handleiding voor het evalueren van
verkeersveiligheidsmaatregelen: Vervolg rapport. Steunpuntrapport RA-MOW-2009-008.
Diepenbeek, België: Steunpunt Mobiliteit en Openbare Werken – spoor Verkeersveiligheid.
Steunpunt Mobiliteit & Openbare Werken 36 RA-MOW-2010-002 Spoor Verkeersveiligheid
Van Raemdonck, K. (2009). De economische kost van een wegongeval gerelateerd aan
de waarde van tijd. Masterproef TEW.
Wegman, F. and L. Arts (ed.) (2005). Advancing Sustainable Safety. National Road
Safety Outlook for 2005-2020.Leidschendam, the Netherlands: SWOV Institute for Road
Safety Research.
Working paper (2008), Commission staff working document; Proposal for a directive of
the European parliament and of the Council facilitating cross-border enforcement in the
field of road safety. Full impact assessment. SEC 351/2. Available at: www.ec.europa.eu
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our common future.
(1987) Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Zimmer, M., (2005). Surveillance, privacy and the ethics of vehicle safety communication
technologies, Ethics and information technology, 7 (4), pp. 201-210
Internet sources:
The European Road Safety Observatory, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/wcm/road_safety/erso/intro2.htm
Belgian Science Policy, available at: www.belspo.be
Verkeerspedagogisch Instituut: www.verkeervpi.be
www.wegcode.be