The stakeholders and their criteria in road safety …...an overview of the main road safety...

WETENSCHAPSPARK 5

B 3590 DIEPENBEEK T ► 011 26 91 12

F ► 011 26 91 99 E ► [email protected]

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 [email protected]

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.


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


• 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)


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.


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:


“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


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


Manufactures


• 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


• Third party safety

Manufacturer

• Cost effectiveness


• 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)


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


• 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


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:


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-


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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.


• Stakeholder: Government/Society as a whole


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.


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


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?


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


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)


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.


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


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


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.


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

The stakeholders and their criteria in road safety …...an overview of the main road safety...

Documents

Transcript of The stakeholders and their criteria in road safety …...an overview of the main road safety...