11/8/12  

A  Transforma/on  to  an  Outcome  Based   Approach  for  Road  Safety:  Giving  Low   and  Middle  Income  Countries  A  Chance  
Prof. Dr. Ahmad Farhan Sadullah Universiti Sains Malaysia

CONTENTS  
•  The  UN  Decade  of  Ac/on  and  the  Low   and  Middle  Income  Countries   •  The  Safe  System  Approach  and  the   Interven/on  Approach   •  Outcome  based  approach:  A  new   proposi/on   •  How  can  we  give  LMIC  a  chance  to   improve  their  road  safety  status?  

1  

11/8/12  

A  PANDEMIC  OFTEN  IGNORED  
•  Road  Safety  situa/on  in  the  world  
–  1.27  million  people  die  due  to  road  crashes   every  year  
•  3500  Average  death  per  day   •  150  Average  death  per  hour  

–  20  to  50  million  suffer  injuries  due  to  road   crashes  every  year   –  90%  of  road  fatali/es  happen  in  low  and   middle  income  countries  
     Source:  WHO  (2009)  Global  Status  Report  on  Road  Safety  

THE  RICH  AND  THE  POOR  
•  1.08  million  (90%)  of  road  fatali/es  are  in   low  and  middle  income  countries  
–  120,000  (10%)  of  road  fatali/es  are  in  high   income  countries  

•  Low  income  countries  
–  21.5  fatali/es/100,000  popula/on  

•  Middle  income  countries  
–  19.5  fatali/es/100,000  popula/on  

•  High  income  countries  
–  10.3  fatali/es/100,000  popula/on  

2  

11/8/12  

ROAD  SAFETY:  THE  RICH  AND  THE   POOR  

Source:  WHO  (2009)  Global  Status  Report  on  Road  Safety  

THE  SAFE  SYSTEM  APPROACH  

3  

11/8/12  

Malaysia’s  Interven/on-­‐based   Integrated  Road  Safety  Approach  –  in  2005  
Pre-­‐Crash   •  Road  Safety  Educa/on   •  Driver  Training  Program  and   Grading  of  Driving  Ins/tutes   •  Automated  Enforcement  System   •  Publicity  Campaigns   •  Community  Based  Programs:   (VEM,  Helmets,  RSE,  Rear  Seat   Belts)   •  Road  User  Assessment  Program   (RUAP)   •  Type  Approval/Construc/on  &   Use  (C&U)   •  Vehicle  Standards  &  Ra/ngs   •  Vehicle  Inspec/on   •  Rear  Seatbelts   •  Under  Run   •  Road  Safety  Audit   •  Blackspot  Treatment   •  Motorcycle  Lanes   •  iRAP     During  Crash   Post-­‐Crash   •  Compliance  and  Correct   •  Skills  of  Paramedics  and   Use  of  Ac/ve  Safety   First  Respondents   Features  

User  

•  Passive  Safety  System   •  Crash  Compa/bility  

•  Ease  of  Evacua/on   Tools  

Vehicle  

Environment  

•  Clear  Zones   •  Barrier  Systems   •  Crash  Cushions  

•  Easy  Access  by  First   Respondent  Teams   •  Trauma  Center  

ROAD  SAFETY  PLAN  OF  MALAYSIA  2006  -­‐  2010  

WE  HAD  A  PLAN  

4  

11/8/12  

LEARNING  FROM     2006  Road  Safety  Plan  
•  Strength  
–  We  had  a  central  agency  to  coordinate  road   safety  effort  (in  the  form  of  JKJR)   –  We  had  put  empirical  targets  (based  on  data  and   evidence)  as  opposed  to  aspira/onal  targets   –  We  had  already  employed  a  balanced  approach   –  We  had  designated  groups  to  be  addressed  in   the  plan   –  We  had  specific  interven/ons  planned  to  achieve   our  targets   –  We  had  the  will  to  achieve  our  targets  

9  STRATEGIES  FOR  THE  2006  –  2010  ROAD  SAFETY  PLAN  
Strategies  
1.  Enhance  Educa/onal  and  pyschological  measures     2.  U/lisa/on    of  technology  for  beSer  enforcement   3.  Engineering  ini/a/ves   4.  Increase  community  par/cipa/on  through  Community   Based  Programmes  (CBP)   5.  Promo/ng  public  transport  to  reduce  exposure   6.  Focus  on  other  cri/cal  gaps   7.  Focus  on  high  risk  road  users   8.  Review  and  enhancement  of  Road  Safety  Legisla/on   9.  Share  funding  responsibility  

Categories  
Road  safety  Interven/on   Road  safety  Interven/on   Road  Safety  Interven/on     Enablers/Approach   General  strategy   Focus  areas   Focus  areas   Ins/tu/onal  requirement   Ins/tu/onal  requirement  

5  

11/8/12  

Malaysian  Trend  
35000000  

fatali/es  con/nues  to  grow  

Fatali/es   6872  

7000  

6800  

30000000  

25000000  

Popula/on     28,910,000  

6600  

6400  

Popula/on,  Registered  Vehicles  

20000000  

6200  

15000000  

Registered     Vehicles   20,188,565  

6000  

5800  

10000000  

5600  

5000000  

Vehicle  registra/on  con/nues   to  grow  
1998   1999   2000   2001   2002   2003   2004   2005   2006   2007   2008   2009   2010  

5400  

5200  

0  

5000  

WHAT  WENT  WRONG?  
•  We  may  have  the  interven/ons   •  The  loop  is  not  closed  when  
–  The  interven/ons  are  not  implemented   –  The  interven/ons  are  implemented  but  are  not   giving  us  the  outcome  and  possible  causes  are   related  to:  
•  •  •  •  •  •  Regula/on  framework   Wrong  business  model   Ineffec/ve  plan   Ineffec/ve  implementers   Inadequate  capacity   Resistant  from  players  and  stakeholders  and  others  

Fatali/es  

6  

11/8/12  

MALAYSIAN  ROAD  SAFETY   SITUATION  
•  When  will  we  see  the  deflec/on  point?   •  Crashes  and  fatali/es  have  been  growing   •  Users,  roads  and  vehicles  con/nue  to  contribute  to   the  Malaysian  crashes   •  We  have  done  a  lot!   •  Are  we  doing  enough?   •  Why  aren’t  we  seeing  results?   •  MANY  LMICs  are  facing  the  same  situa/on   •  EVEN  MORE  LMICs  are  struggling  to  get  where   Malaysia  is  

This  was  our  old  prac/ce  

ROAD  SAFETY  TARGETS   Execu/on  of  interven/ons  
Ins/tu/onal   Safer  Roads   and   Mobility   Safer   Vehicles   Safer  Road   Users   Post  crash   mgt   Safer  Public   Transport  

ROAD  SAFETY  PROGRAMMES  AND   INTERVENTIONS  
   

7  

11/8/12  

PERHAPS  A  NEW  APPROACH  IS  NEEDED  !!!!!  

ROAD  SAFETY  TARGETS   Desired  Strategic   Outcomes  
Ins/tu/onal   Safer  Roads   and   Mobility   Safer   Vehicles   Safer  Road   Users   Post  crash   mgt   Safer  Public   Transport  

ROAD  SAFETY  PROGRAMMES  AND   INTERVENTIONS  
   

Strategic  Outcomes  
Reduc/on  in  speed   Reduc/on  in  red  light  running   Reduc/on  in  reckless  driving   Increase  in  helmet  wearing   Increase  in  seat  belt  wearing   Improvement  in  airbags  installa/on   Improvement  in  car  worthiness  state  of  vehicles   Bemer  trained  drivers   Bemer  community  involvement   Risk  reduc/on  for  motorcyclist   Risk  reduc/on  for  pedestrians   Reduc/on  in  risks  associated  with  roads   Improvement  in  public  transport  safety   Improvement  in  public  transport  usage   Reduc/on  in  death  due  to  emergency  delay  

Safer   Safer   Road   Ins/tu/o mobility   Safer   nal   and  roads  vehicles   Users  

Post   Crash   Mgt  

Safer   Public   Transport  

X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X  

X   X  

X   X   X   X   X  

X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X  

X  

X   X   X   X   X   X  

X   X   X   X  

X   X   X  

X   X   X   X   X  

X  

8  

11/8/12  

MEASURING  OUTCOMES:     KPI  FOR  ROAD  SAFETY  
Outcomes     KPI   Measure  of  Progress   %  reduc/on  frm  prev  yr   %  reduc/on  frm  prev  yr   %  reduc/on  frm  prev  yr   %  increase  frm  prev  yr   %  increase  frm  prev  yr   %  increase  frm  prev  yr   %  increase  frm  prev  yr   %  increase  frm  prev  yr   %  increase  frm  prev  yr   %  increase  frm  prev  yr   %  increase  frm  prev  yr   %  reduc/on  frm  prev  yr   %  increase  frm  prev  yr   %  increase  frm  prev  yr   %  reduc/on  frm  prev  yr   %  increase  frm  prev  yr  

Reduc/on  in  speed   #  of  people  going  above  speed  limit   Reduc/on  in  red  light  running   #  of  people  bea/ng  red  light   Reduc/on  in  reckless  driving   #  of  crashes  due  to  careless  driving  from  PDRM  data   Increase  in  helmet  wearing   #  of  people  wearing  helmet   Increase  in  seat  belt  wearing   #  of  people  wearing  seatbelt   Risk  reduc/on  for  pedestrians   length  of  road  with  4*  by  iRAP  for  pedestrian   Reduc/on  in  risks  associated  with  roads   length  of  road  with  4*  by  iRAP     Improvement  in  public  transport  safety   %  of  companies  complying  to  SHE   Improvement  in  airbags  installa/on   %  of  cars  with  frontal  airbags   Improvement  in  crashworthiness  state  of  vehicles   %  of  cars  complying  to  R94  &  R95   Reduc/on  in  risks  associated  with  vehicles   #  of  models  with  MYVAP  ra/ng  4*  an  above   BeSer  trained  drivers   %  of  P  drivers  crea/ng  a  high  risk  offence   BeSer  community  involvement   #  of  community  program     Risk  reduc/on  for  motorcyclist   length  of  road  with  4*  by  iRAP  for  motorcyclist   Risk  reduc/on  due  to  substance  use   #  of  death  related  to  substance  use   Improvement  in  public  transport  usage   #  of  road  public  transport  user  (bus  &  taxi)   Reduc/on  in  death  due  to  emergency  delay  

%  emergency  vehicles  arriving  within  accepted  /me   %  increase  frm  prev  yr  

SECTORAL  RESPONSIBILITIES  
•  •  •  •  •  •  Ins/tu/onal   Safer  Mobility  and  Roads   Safer  Vehicles   Safer  Road  User   Post  Crash  Management   Safer  Public  Transport  

9  

11/8/12  

IMPLEMENTATION  PLAN  
•  Sectoral  heads  –  to  provide  ownership   and  leadership   •  Implementa/on  plan  with  /me   schedule  and  milestones   •  Introduc/on  of  performance   measures,  KPI   •  Backed  with  periodic  evalua/on  and   research  

Strategic  Outcomes   Reduc/on  in  speed  

Safer   mobilit Safer   Safer   Post   Ins/tu y  and   vehicle Road   Crash   /onal   roads   s   Users   Mgt  

Safer   Public   Transp ort   PROGRAMMES  

X  

X  

X  

X  

X   1.  AES  
2.    Improved  enforcement   3.    Effec/ve  KEJARA   4.    Effec/ve  Social  Marke/ng   5.    OTHERS  

Reduc/on  in  red  light  running   Reduc/on  in  reckless  driving   Increase  in  helmet  wearing   Increase  in  seat  belt  wearing   Improvement  in  airbags   installa/on   Improvement  in  car  worthiness   state  of  vehicles   BeSer  trained  drivers   BeSer  community  involvement   Risk  reduc/on  for  motorcyclist   Risk  reduc/on  for  pedestrians  

X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X  

X   X   X  

X   X   X   X  

X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X   X  

10  

11/8/12  

SECTORAL  HEADS  
STRATEGIC  THRUSTS   Lead  agency   Other   responsible   agencies   OUTCOMES  TO   PROGRAMS   BE  ADDRESSED   AND   OUTCOMES  

1   Ins/tu/onal  
a.  b.  c.  d.  e. 

Enforcement   Legal  mamers   Data  issues   Inter  agency  issues   Capacity  and   capability  

2   Safe  mobility  and  Roads   3   Safe  Vehicles   4   Safe  Road  User   5   Post  Crash  Mgt   6   Safe  Public  Transport  

CONCLUSION  
•  LMICs  are  struggling  to  find  a  solu/on  to   their  road  safety  woes   •  LMICs  will  always  learn  from  the  successful   na/ons.   •  But….  The  interven/on  based  approach  may   post  challenges  that  only  exist  in  LMICs   •  An  outcome  based  approach  maybe  more   prac/cal  and  will  hopefully  be  more   succesful  

11  

11/8/12  

Thank  You  

cefrhn@eng.usm.my  

12  

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful