SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

Priority 1.6 Sustainable Development, Global Change and Ecosystem
1.6.2: Sustainable Surface Transport

Police Enforcement Policy and Programmes on European Roads

Contract No: 019744
Deliverable 6

Comparison and analysis of traffic
enforcement chains across EU Member
States and in relation to EU policies
Due date of deliverable: 28/02/2008
Actual submission date: 21/08/2008
Start date of the project: 1/3/2006

Duration: 30 months

Organisation name of lead contractor for this deliverable: DTU Department of Transport, Technical
University of Denmark

Authors:

Lotte Larsen, DTU
Vassilios Vavakos, CERTH/HIT
David Zaidel, 4Sight
Final

Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework
Programme (2002-2006)
Dissemination level:
PU Public
PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services)
RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services)
CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)

PU

PEPPER Project Consortium

1

VTT Technical Research Centre of
Finland

2

4Sight, Ergonomics & Safety

ISR

3

IBSR-BIVV Institut Belge Pour La
Sécurité Routière

BE

4

KLPD/TISPOL Korps Landelijke
Politiediensten /

NL

5

bfu Schweizerische Beratungsstelle für
Unfallverhütung

CH

6

CERTH/HIT Hellenic Institute of
Transport

GR

7

BASt Bundesanstalt für Strassenwesen

8

CDV Transport Research Centre

CZ

9

DTU Department of Transport,
Technical University of Denmark

DK

10

IBDIM Road and Bridge Research
Institute

PL

11

INRETS Institut National de Recherche
sur les Transports et leur Sécurité

FR

12

KfV Kuratorium für
Verkehrssicherheit
(Co-ordinator)

AT

13

SWOV Institute for Road Safety
Research

NL

14

TØI Institute of Transport Economics

NO

15

TRL Limited

UK

16

UPM Universidad Politécnica de
Madrid

ES

17

VTI Swedish National Road and
Transport Research Institute

SE

18

ETSC European Transport Safety
Council

INT

FI

D

PEPPER Deliverable 6

Dissemination Level: PU

Contract No: 019744

Abstract
The aim of this Deliverable is to describe and compare Traffic Law Enforcement systems in
the Member States. Focus is on: speeding, drink driving and non use of seat belts.
Data were primarily collected by questionnaires. The main results show that most countries
have more or less explicit Traffic Law Enforcement plans with focus on the three areas
included. Action plans are often very generic and data about actual implementation are scarce.
Speed limits as well as BAC limits vary between the countries. Random breath testing through
alcoholmeters is commonly applied, while blood testing is used as a complementary when the
legal evidence is needed for a court.
Seat belt use is in general obligatory for all persons, but far from all the countries have
consistent enforcement of this measure.
In all three areas, violation and sanction data are most frequently collected, while data
collection on violations by foreign drivers is rather sparse.
Publicity campaigns appear to be carried out to various degrees, but the combination of
enforcement and campaigns is not always given priority.
Mostly, cross border enforcement is only practiced to a limited degree.

21/08/2008

3

Final

PEPPER Deliverable 6

Dissemination Level: PU

Contract No: 019744

Contents
ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................ 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................... 5
ABBREVIATION LIST .......................................................................................................... 7
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 9
1.1 Background............................................................................................................... 9
1.2 Objectives of the Deliverable .................................................................................... 9
1.3 General comments on the text ................................................................................. 10
2 METHOD........................................................................................................................ 11
2.1 Preparation of the questionnaires............................................................................. 11
2.2 The data collection process...................................................................................... 11
2.3 The questionnaire.................................................................................................... 12
3 ROAD SAFETY POLICY CONTEXT ............................................................................ 13
3.1 The role of enforcement in EU safety policy............................................................ 13
3.2 National Road Safety Plan (NRSP) and TLE ........................................................... 16
3.3 The important role of TLE in National Road Safety Plans ....................................... 22
3.4 Basic attributes of Traffic Policing Systems in EU countries ................................... 32
4 FOLLOW-UP OF OFFENCES: DEMERIT POINT SYSTEMS AND
REHABILITATION PROGRAMS.................................................................................. 47
4.1 Demerit Point Systems (DPS) ................................................................................. 47
4.2 Rehabilitation programs .......................................................................................... 49
5 TLE PROCEDURE FOR THE THREE SELECTED TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATIONS .... 51
5.1 Traffic Law Enforcement procedures after speeding................................................ 51
5.2 Information of the enforcement chain in the field of drink-driving........................... 61
5.3 Enforcement of restraint use.................................................................................... 68
6 CROSS BORDER ENFORCEMENT .............................................................................. 74
7 PUBLICITY CAMPAIGNS............................................................................................. 77
7.1 Publicity campaigns regarding enforcement of speeding.......................................... 78
7.2 Publicity campaigns regarding drink-driving ........................................................... 78
7.3 Publicity Campaigns regarding Restraint use........................................................... 79
8 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................. 81
9 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 87

21/08/2008

4

Final

The means to improve Traffic Law Enforcement include intensifying police enforcement. w Traffic Law Enforcement is always a significant component of National Road Safety Plans (or of similar policy statements) even if it is not always referred as such directly. w Of the three levels of data elements to be reported to EC. Data about actual implementation of traffic policing are especially scarce. seat belts and cross-border vehicles and drivers. drink-driving. w Almost all EU countries focus on enforcement of speeding. especially with respect to data categories described in the Annex of the EC Recommendation on enforcement in the field of road safety (2004/345/EC): Speeding. w In all EU countries various media are used to inform the public at large about a National Road Safety Plan. but it is much more complex than perhaps anticipated.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The aim of this Deliverable “Comparison and analysis of traffic enforcement chains across EU Member States and in relation to EU policies” is to describe and compare the structure. w Most National Road Safety Plans do not include special funding provisions for the plan. increasing alcohol checks. new legal initiatives and local actions in the area of Traffic Law Enforcement. especially not in urban areas. Data about the enforcement chain has been collected by means of questionnaires distributed to each of the Member States plus Switzerland. the actual enforcement. which may have practical implications for implementing the European Commission Recommendations and collecting the data requested. see Annex V. 21/08/2008 5 Final . increased automatic speed enforcement. An important aspect is also to give documentation of information gaps in each state. function and processes of the enforcement chain in the Member States. Most of them have accident reduction targets fairly similar to EC target of about -50% fatality reductions. the details of local traffic policing are primarily determined by “local wisdom”taking into account the suggestions of a national policy or plan. the administrative and legal handling after infringement. the plans do not specify fatality reduction targets by area of action. The results can be summarized as follows: w Almost all EU countries have a National Road Safety Plan. In general. the Traffic Law Enforcement chain description is attainable. This includes the decision making process (where and when to enforce).driving and non-use of seat belts. No country can provide reliable national data on actual deployment of police enforcement. but to a various degree. and the follow-up procedures. The enforcement action plans that are available in most countries are very generic. increasing the severity of sanctions and increasing the coordination of police enforcement with public media campaigns. drink. w Regarding police forces. “Traffic police”is often organised in a complex way.

but becoming criminal with the seriousness of the violations. Regarding automatic speed registration. while the technology has the capacity to automate and speed up the followup procedure. Almost all the countries carry out random breath testing in systematic surveillances of drink-driving as well as a part of the normal traffic enforcement. Only half of the 18 countries have consistent and repeated enforcement of restraint use. especially for motorways and highways. the procedure is administrative. w In almost all the countries seat belt use is in general obligatory for all persons. Less attention is given to data concerning changes in rules and court decisions. and most often with a combination of different kinds of sanctions. Many countries also collect limited data on some of the indicators related to speed. w Speeding and drink-driving violations are followed up with fines. violation and sanction data are most frequently collected.8 g/l. In 13 responding countries with Demerit Points only about half of them are covering all three considered offences. in 6 out of 8 countries the follow-up procedure is not more effective than by manual registrations. and should be harmonized. Most often. w Regarding data on enforcement. w Bilateral cross border agreements vary.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 w No country seems to have an Enforcement Coordination Point in charge of collecting the Traffic Law Enforcement data from the many sources in a country. and are limited to reciprocal tracing of violators and collection of fines. No country allows another country access to its registries. it seems most often just to be traffic lessons or improvement courses. 21/08/2008 6 Final . w Accident data are available in all countries.0 g/l to 0. Therefore. Sanctions for not wearing a seat belt are often less severe than for speeding and drink-driving. w The speed limits vary between the countries. w Demerit Point Systems in the countries differ. w The BAC limits in the countries vary from 0. Typically. the benefits of automated registration are limited to the first part of the chain (detection). w Publicity campaigns appear to be carried out to various degrees in the countries and the combination of enforcement and campaigns is not always given priority. while data collection on violations by foreign drivers accounts for the greatest information gaps in all three focus areas: Speed. drink driving and seat belt use. while evidential breath testing is not used at high degree yet. the responsibility of wearing seat belts lies on the driver and the passengers. Most often alcoholmeters and blood testing devices are used. w In the limited number of countries reporting to have rehabilitation programs/schemes of some kind. and sent to the IRTAD database. drinkdriving and belt use.

PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 Abbreviation List BAC Blood Alcohol Content BNAO Bulgarian National Audit Office CARE Community database on Accidents on the Roads in Europe CCPD Centres De Coordination Police Douanes DPS Demerit Point Systems EC European Commission ECMT European Council of Ministers of Transport ENTRAC Energy Transport Actions ESCAPE Enhanced Safety Coming from Appropriate Police Enforcement ETSC European Transport Safety Council EU European Union FCVV Federal Commission for Traffic Safety GADGET Guarding Automobile Drivers through Guidance Education and Technology NGO Non Governmental Organization NRSP National Road Safety Plan OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development PEPPER Police Enforcement Policy and Programmes on European Roads RSF Federal Road Safety Fund SMADIT Joint Action against Alcohol and Drugs in Traffic TIS.PT Transport. Innovation and Systems S.A. TLE Traffic Law Enforcement 21/08/2008 7 Final .

.

2. but it is not optimally deployed either in terms of strategic or tactical planning (ESCAPE 2003).the administrative and legal handling after infringement . was documentation of information gaps in each State. legal.the actual enforcement . a Work Package focusing on “Strategic. especially with respect to data categories described in the EC Recommendations: Speeding. drink driving. This Deliverable is a part of Work package 1 in the project. seat-belt use and cross-border vehicles and drivers.2 Objectives of the Deliverable The overall objective is to compare and analyse the Traffic Enforcement Chain across the EU Member States and in relation to EU policies.decision making processes (where and when to enforce) . function and processes of the enforcement chain in the Member States. 21/08/2008 9 Final .the ability to collect data requested by the Commission with respect to implementing its Recommendation on Enforcement. The findings are compared to the Recommendations of the European Commission (see Annex V). 1. Another important aspect of Task 1. dissemination of good enforcement practices between the Member States and more rapid adoption of new technologies in enforcement. the Deliverable presents the results of Task 1. drink-driving. The general objectives of the PEPPER project are to increase the effectiveness of traffic enforcement throughout EU by showing the way to data led police enforcement operations. including: . More specifically. More specifically the objectives are descriptions and analyses of : w The role of National Road Safety Plans (NRSPs) as an important basis for Traffic Law Enforcement w The function and processes of the enforcement chain in relation to speeding. which has the objective to describe the structure.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Traffic enforcement by the police has shown to have great safety impacts. administrative and social context of Traffic Law Enforcement (TLE) in Member States”.the follow-up procedures . seat belt use and cross-border vehicles and drivers.2.

Many of the comments were valuable and their substance was integrated into the text. see Annex V. Vassilis Vavakos (CERTH) has composed section 5.1. Traffic Law Enforcement procedures after speeding violation Lotte Larsen (DTU TRANSPORT) has composed the rest of the Deliverable. In addition to the tables in the text. Contribution to the Deliverable: David Zaidel (4Sight) has composed section 3. Further. These references concerns EC Recommendation 2004/345/EC. in all the questions used for data collection it was possible to add comments.3 General comments on the text In this Deliverable references are continuously made to the EC Recommendation. “Road Safety Policy Context”. 21/08/2008 10 Final . an option used with varying degrees by each respondent. more tables are presented in an Annex. ANNEX. the amount of information for any country or issue was not similar. belonging to D6: Deliverable 6: Comparison and analysis of traffic Enforcement chains across EU Member States and in relation to EU policies.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 1. Consequently.

Belgium. Cyprus (2004). The Netherlands. Poland (2004). 21/08/2008 11 Final . Ministry of Justice etc. Bulgaria and Rumania did not receive a questionnaire. 2005). Each partner was responsible for data collection in one or more Member States. 4. IBDIM. Ministry of Transport.e. Ireland. and data has been collected by questionnaires sent out to all Member States plus Switzerland. Traffic Police headquarters secretariat. using information from the following previous research with results from 2004 and forwards: ETSC: Traffic Law enforcement across the EU (2006) Enforcement Monitor 2006 (all numbers): ETSC’s newsletter on Traffic Law Enforcement in the EU. INRETS and DTL. Finally. BFU. as they were not Member States when the project started. TIS. CDV. Hungary (2004) United Kingdom. Slovakia (2004). Austria.4 Section 3 in this Deliverable has further been complemented with information from the ECMT / OECD TS3 Country reports (OECD / ECMT. 2006). i. Denmark. Included Member States: Questionnaires were completed and returned from the following 18 countries: Czech Republic (2004).1 Preparation of the questionnaires Some of the questions in the questionnaire were filled in before they were sent to the Member States. Sweden. CERTH. TISPOL. Spain. 4Sight. 2.2 The data collection process The partners in this task are DTU Transport.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 2 METHOD The description of the enforcement chain is primarily qualitative.PT: Comparative Study Of Road Traffic Rules And Corresponding Enforcement Actions In The Member States Of The European Union” Data from previous studies such as GADGET (2000) and ESCAPE (2003) were not used. based on results from WP. and Switzerland. Latvia (2004). Lithuania (2004). Greece. 2. CARE country profiles (CARE. Data could be collected from e. Italy. they were responsible to contact relevant persons in the respective Member States and ask for their help with data collection in their own country.g. as many things may have changed since their data collection. 2005) and ENTRAC Country Reports (ENTRAC. a few questions were filled in beforehand.

Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Interior. Ministry of Transport. The full as well as the reduced questionnaire are presented in Annex IV. In this part the organizations involved in road safety and especially in TLE. drink-driving and restraint use. 21/08/2008 12 Final . The questionnaire had a Part 5 as well. and maybe the financial support of a TLE plan. The primary reduction consisted of reducing the number of questions concerning NRSPs. intensive enforcement actions for restraint use etc. the responses on part 5 were too sparse to give an impression of the situation in the Member States. Part 2 refers to the existence of a Demerit Point System and Rehabilitation Programs. continuity and consistency.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 As the number of Member States responding on the questionnaire was only 17 in the first round. but only one Member State (The Netherlands) responded. Data was collected by various actors in the different countries. evidential equipment for BAC testing. The objective is to examine the existence of a National Traffic Law Enforcement (TLE) plan under the umbrella of a NRSP. If a TLE plan in some way is included in a NRSP this could guarantee to some extent the coordination. 2. The reduced questionnaires were sent to those Member States that did not answer in the first time round. Part 3 is divided into three focused areas: Speed. but it was considered useful to include them in this questionnaire for reasons of updating and completeness. but primarily by Research Institutions. automatic registration procedures for speeding. Part 4 refers to the collection and eventual reinvestment of fines. opportunities and threats (external factors) of the TLE chain as well as foreseen. Police.3 The questionnaire The full questionnaire consists of 5 parts: Part 1 refers to the road safety planning context. The data presented reports the situation up to May 2007. A number of the questions listed in this part have been covered by other projects in the past. it was decided to cut down the questionnaire to the most important information in order to increase the chance of getting information from more countries. As a consequence. which aim at identifying strengths and weaknesses (internal factors). announced or expected changes in the TLE chain in the Member States. the targets set for TLE. consisting of questions of opinions. the convergence with the EC policies and Recommendations and the existence of monitoring and readjusting mechanisms are investigated. results from this part of the questionnaire will not be presented in the Deliverable. The existing limitations and sanctions set by the Road Traffic Act are reviewed for each type of violation and special issues pertaining at each type of violation are examined.g. However. e.

harmonized and internationally cooperative Traffic Law Enforcement (TLE) by the official police agencies in each member state.1 The role of enforcement in EU safety policy The White Paper on European Transport Policy. Member States. make professional transport safer. industry. The EC Recommendation on Enforcement (European Commission. and provide the Commission with information about the plan and the progress of its implementation (See Annex V). transport companies and private users. w Better control of driving licenses. which was approved by the European Commission on 12 September 2001 (European Commission. to progress towards the policy goal of halving the number of road fatalities: Induce road users to improve their behavior. Table 3. The EC identified four major policy instruments for influencing / improving road user behavior: w Active. 2004) encourages each member state to set up a “National Enforcement Plan” for implementing the specific operational measures contained in the Recommendation. and improve road infrastructure. 2003) identified four major areas of actions for promoting the EU. make vehicles safer. w Public persuasion by media information and campaign.1 summarizes the 13 main action points of the Recommendation on Enforcement. regularly evaluate and modify the plan when necessary. 2001) set up the safety goal of halving the number of road accident victims (fatalities) in the European Union by the year 2010. 21/08/2008 13 Final . regional and local authorities. The European Road Safety Action Programme (European Commission.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 3 ROAD SAFETY POLICY CONTEXT 3. w Better control of professional drivers and. The responsibility for achieving this ambitious target is shared by all stakeholders in the transport system and by all Member States.

these enforcement actions may take place in combination with other traffic enforcement actions. in any event ensure that random breath testing is carried out regularly in places where and at times when non-compliance occurs regularly and where this brings about an increased risk of accidents. 8. Ensure that enhanced enforcement actions described in recommendations 4 – 7 will be combined with information to the public.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 Table 3. and ensure that officers carrying out random breath testing checks use evidential breath test devices whenever they suspect drink-driving. and ensure that the use of seat belts is enforced in every individual case where non-use is observed and the car is being stopped. Evaluate regularly and may adapt the national enforcement plan in accordance with relevant developments and provide the Commission with information concerning such adaptations. which should contain the information described in chapter I of the standard form laid down in the annex 2. Ensure that intensive enforcement actions concerning the non-use of seat belts with a duration of at least two weeks take place at least three times a year. which shall be held for each of the three subjects of enhanced enforcement actions separately. Member States assist one another in order to give proper effect to this recommendation for which purpose every Member State will designate an enforcement co-ordination point and provide each other and the Commission with the co-ordinates of this co-ordination point. 21/08/2008 14 Final . in places where non-use occurs regularly and where there is an increased risk of accidents. 9. with a view to this. 7. that acts which aim at hindering or circumventing enforcement are subject to sanctions based on the same principles. drinkdriving and non-use of seat belts are effective. proportionate and dissuasive. Provide for procedures assuring that all speeding violations registered by the automated speed enforcement equipment are followed-up. 5. Apply as a general policy that violations detected in the course of the enhanced enforcement actions prescribed in recommendations 4 – 7 are followed-up by the infliction and execution of a sanction and/or a remedial measure and ensure that sanctions applicable to speeding. which will be given in the form of publicity campaigns aiming at making the public conscious of the subject concerned. secondary roads and urban roads and ensure that the checks are carried out in such a way as to guarantee their effectiveness. and shall moreover send the same information to the co-ordination points of the other Member States. such as those concerning speeding and drink-driving. the enforcement co-ordination points will be used for exchange of best enforcement practices applied by Member States in the fields covered by this recommendation and will also carry out the task of communicating the information to the Commission as described in recommendation 12.1. namely that they are carried out regularly on stretches of roads where non-compliance occurs regularly and where this brings about an increased risk of accidents. Ensure that automated speed enforcement equipment is used to check speeding on motorways. and in the form of roadside information concerning concrete enforcement actions carried out on that road. 6. 4. that sanctions are more severe in the case of repeated serious violations committed by the same offender and that sanctions include the possibility of suspension or withdrawal of the driving license and of immobilization of the vehicle for serious violations. Ensure the application of random breath testing with an alcohol screening device as a leading principle for surveillance of drink-driving and in such a way as to guarantee its effectiveness. 3. Commission Recommendation On Enforcement In The Field Of Road Safety 1 Set up a national enforcement plan containing the measures they intend to take for the implementation of this Recommendation and provide the Commission with this national enforcement plan.

the recommendation also considers “horizontal type”measures. legal) to accept the Recommendations. one may also suppose that “in principle”readiness. 11. The measures recommended by the European Commission pertain to specific efficient methods for controlling. on the extent that certain prerequisites subsumed by the Recommendation. in part. the first year covered by this report from Member States will be the first full calendar year after the date of publication of this recommendation. via TLE. harmonization of TLE regulations and practices. Communicate the information on the implementation of this recommendation and developments in the fields in question to the Commission every two years. The readiness by each member state to implement the measures listed in the Recommendation on Enforcement (including the annex listing in detail the information requested by the Commission) depends. professional and.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 10. do in fact exist in the state. These include the complete and efficient processing of citations. 12. The first prerequisite or condition is that a country has an explicit Transport Policy that includes a significant Road Safety Policy component with an ambitious accident reduction 21/08/2008 15 Final . the three non. The EC Recommendation on Enforcement logically follows “The European Road Safety Action Programme”that. (political. in accordance with chapter II of the standard form laid down in the annex. which will keep record of such communications between Member States. In addition to behavior specific enforcement tools.compliance behaviors identified as having the largest impact on safety: Speeding. and ensure that the co-ordination points mentioned in recommendation 9 will be used for these contacts between Member States. international cooperation regarding out-of state violations. Ensure that the competent authorities of the Member State in which such serious or repeated offences have been recorded will ask the competent authorities of the Member State in which the vehicle is registered for appropriate measures to be taken with regard to the offender and ensure that in such cases. and non-use of safety-belts. at the end of the first two-year period mentioned in recommendation 12. Alternatively. was derived from “The White Paper on European Transport Policy”. subsequently. drink-driving. the information will reach the Commission not later than 30 September following the date on which the two-year period covered by this report expires. 13. Examine. and wide provision of information to the public concerning the specific activities of traffic law enforcement. relevant to all types of non-compliance behaviors. in the sense of willingness. would facilitate the creation. through the enforcement co-ordination point concerned mentioned in recommendation 9. the effectiveness of existing national measures of measures taken subsequent to this recommendation and inform the Commission of their findings. Ensure that serious or repeated offences jeopardizing road safety committed by a nonresident driver are reported to the competent authorities of the [other] Member State in which the vehicle is registered. appropriate sanctioning of all violations. the latter Member State will inform the first Member State about the follow up it has given to the request. of the mechanisms and tools needed to implement the Recommendations. in turn. in each state.

analyzed and evaluated. 2005) and several country. 2002). Some states. enforcement. which is derived from the general National Safety Strategy or Plan and. The 6 th condition is that safety plans and enforcement operations in a state are routinely and widely presented to the public in order to raise awareness and gain acceptance and support. deployment of enforcement forces and instruments. It also articulated the importance of defining performance indicators (for safety. political and other support commensurate with the expected contribution of the Enforcement Plan to the safety targets. analyzed the 20+ safety plans from OECD countries and suggested several criteria for developing an effective plan. whereby data such as listed above. 21/08/2008 16 Final . districts. The 5th condition is that the enforcement policy in a given state accepts.2. local communities in the country) are derived from National Plans and follow the same procedures. that massive enforcement of Speeding. “detailed safety action plan”. “safety targets”. such as Finland. The 4 th condition is that Local Level Enforcement operations (in regions. ETSC Enforcement Compendium by Country (ETSC. measure up against the assumptions and requirements of the EC Recommendation on Enforcement. The information for the countries is based on a survey questionnaire and interviews with relevant contacts in many of the countries (PEPPER Task 1. partially overlapping. The OECD report “Safety on Roads what’s the vision?” (OECD. violation records and follow-up. sharpened the distinctions between “safety vision”.specific documents and personal contacts. lists of “safety measures”.1) and complemented with similar. open to scrutiny of professionals and the general public. Task 4. Drink-Driving and Non. ENTRAC Country Reports (ENTRAC. A related condition is the availability of a monitoring and evaluation mechanism in the country. 3.2 National Road Safety Plan (NRSP) and TLE Since the mid 1990’s more and more countries have produced National Road Safety Plans. The next sections will examine how the current (or recent) situation in the area of road safety and traffic enforcement in EU countries. like the EC.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 target similar to that expressed by the Commission. and other requirements specified and implied by the “Annex to the Recommendations”. this report. 2005). 2006). can be collected. produce an updated new plan every 3 or 5 years.use of Seat belts is the most effective way of influencing road-user behavior and of reducing road fatalities. CARE country profiles (CARE. “safety strategy or policy”.2. attributes of enforcement locations. traffic behavior. information from recent surveys published by others: The ECMT / OECD TS3 Country reports (OECD / ECMT. In particular. so that the enforcement plan or its intensity could be modified according to the outcomes. 2006). The 2nd condition is that a State shares the EC view that police enforcement is the major policy instrument to achieve the safety target. compliance rates. consequently is given funding. The 3rd condition is that the practice of TLE in a state is according to a reasoned and explicit Enforcement Plan. site sampling procedures. or any other activity) and their corresponding monitoring and evaluation systems. and subsequent publications by others. The remaining set of prerequisite conditions for implementing the Recommendation concern the availability of specific and detailed sets of data about roads.

Austria. “safety priorities”. Belgium. the Ministry of Finance and the Cyprus Radio Foundation. The Unit presents a report of the progress of the Strategic Road Safety Plan to the National Road Safety Council every four months. “safety actions” and.departmental committee) and eventually by the relevant political authority (e.2. In some cases.1 How National Road Safety Plans are made During the last 10 years just about every country in the EU (including accession countries) has published a National Road Safety Plan with a “vision”. suggest new measures in various areas and. A Road Safety Unit has been set up in the Ministry of Communications and Works. list ongoing measures. the Ministry of Education. and with participants or consultants from the road safety research community and other stakeholders. studies. The Council is chaired by the Minister of Communications and Works. a “target”and a varied mix of “safety problems”. The Consultative Committee comprises representatives from: w The Ministry of Transport and Communications 21/08/2008 17 Final . The research community is very active in this body. funding requirements and impact estimates. the General Directors of the Ministry of Health. The complex administrative structure of the bodies involved in creating a NRSP is demonstrated even by the case of Cyprus. administrative and managerial tool of the Road Safety Council. a small country with a centralized government structure. This is a permanent body that advises the ministry and initiates safety reviews.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 3. Finland provides a similar example of a centralized government that has had a long and successful experience in preparing effective NRSPs with significant participation of many stakeholders yet with a very coherent leadership by the coordinating Ministry. e. sometimes. Finland. sometimes. The Ministry of Transport and Communication is coordinating the plan and its implementation with the help of The Consultative Committee on Road Safety. projects and activities of the agencies represented in the coordinating committee. which acts as the executive. legal prerequisites. The members represent all involved authorities in road safety: the Chief of Police. a parliament).g. and evaluations. One of its roles is to prepare a draft of next NRSP. These documents are typically a product of government inter-departmental / coordinating committees. the Directors of the Departments of Public Works and Road Transport. “new initiatives”. the Attorney General. The Unit analyses road safety conditions and risk factors and monitors actions and measures scheduled for implementation out of the Strategic Action Plan 2005-2010. offer a priority list.a Road Safety Research organization was given the task to prepare a draft document that was then discussed and approved by a government’s transport department (or an inter. The committees reflect on the safety situation and safety problems and needs. “safety measures”. The Cyprus Road Safety Council is a national council advising the Ministry of Communications and Works on road safety issues. The Netherlands or the Czech Republic. under the leadership of one most responsible department (usually a ministry of transport or equivalent).g. The Council of Ministers is briefed annually on the progress of the Strategic Action Plan and is asked to approve the funding of actions and the provision of required staff and equipment.

politicians from counties and municipalities. issued policy document called "Program For Improved Road Safety. Ministry of Education. Most of the professional work was done by researchers at BIVV/IBSR. The State Provincial Offices coordinate the road safety work of several sectors in municipalities. Ministry of the Environment) w The Finnish National Road Administration w The road safety research community (Technical Research Centre of Finland. where most of the implementation needs to take place. The Danish Commission on Road Safety was appointed by the Danish Ministry of Justice in 1966. Under this overall national road safety plan. The group drafted the Belgian NRSP that was debated in the parliament. The NRSP in Finland is “duplicated”in the regions. The group is lead by a non. Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. The traffic planning departments of the Provincial State Offices set the road safety goals for each province. from Belgium. At the federal level. and safety action plans. The Commission includes members of the Danish Parliament. Central Organization for Motor Traffic. road user groups and other public and private stakeholders. and eventually adopted formally by the Government. Central Organization for Traffic Safety in Finland. demonstrates that a Ministry of Transport is not always the seat of bodies planning a national road safety strategy. The federal Ministry of Transport. insurance organizations. research organizations. other stakeholders and various experts. University of Tampere. Ministry of the Interior." which lists over 100 measures addressing a wide range of safety problems. Germany is an example of a federal country that chose not to launch a formal NRSP with a Vision statement and quantitative fatality reduction Targets. with representatives from key actors in the field.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 w All non-transport governmental bodies involved in road safety issues (The Ministry of Justice. modified. However. the Federal Police is not officially involved in preparing the policy document about road safety. Confederation of Finnish Industry and Employers) w Other stakeholders (Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities. Finnish Motor Insurers' Centre). The group includes expert representatives from various government agencies. the Federal Road Safety Plan (General Assembly on Road Safety) of 2001-2002 and 2007 was created by a working group appointed by the Federal Commission for Traffic Safety (FCVV). This takes place through the Provincial Traffic Safety Committees. Yet another example. It is the Danish Commission on Road Safety that drafted the National Road Safety Action Plan of 2002. In another example. Building and Housing.governmental research body. the “Länder” may develop their own policies and action plans and involve their state’s police in the process. targets. The Danish Commission on Road Safety advises the Ministry of Transport on road safety. They also make the plans for supporting and activating the road safety work and reporting on the progress made to the Ministry of Transport and Communications. Also in Switzerland. with federal structure of Cantons. all counties and more than 100 local authorities have set their own regional programs. representatives of NGOs. University of Helsinki) w Main road-user organizations (Finnish Transport Workers Union. The 21/08/2008 18 Final .

US.2 Numerical Safety Target as a road safety “Vision” One can argue that a “Vision”of a “safe transport system”is expected to express a view of the nature of the transport system and what kind of priorities it should reflect regarding life style.2. Nevertheless.2 summarizes the reported or published targets in various countries. the Dutch Sustainable Safety concept. but Cantons tend to follow it. (which includes most EU states. Some set targets for injuries as well or differential targets for various road user types. 21/08/2008 19 Final . 3. 2002).post on the road to the vision. overall reduction in road fatalities. in comparison with 2000 baseline (ECMT. ministry of interior. and few others) during its Bucharest meeting in 2002. Australia. Japan. not a target. namely. ecological values. urban landscape and more. and other agencies responsible for legal or administrative sanctions. between alternative courses of action. Canada. by experts from ministry of police and traffic police. if not most National Road Safety Plans seem to present their numerical fatality reduction target as the driving Vision behind the Plan. adopted unanimously the target of a 50% reduction in the number of victims killed in road traffic accidents by 2012. social values. A “vision”should help and guide when making choices between conflicting demands. the European Commission set a slightly more ambitious safety target for its Member States.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 Federal Roads Authority (FEDRO) prepared a NRSP. The ECMT Council of Ministers. Table 3. TLE is always represented. or Strategy. in all countries. ministry of justice. is a Vision. one that may be needed when making choices at crossroads. many. in committees (or workgroups or taskforcesdepending on the national structure of government and public service) preparing a NRSP. For example. Few countries also set specific targets for different categories of safety measures. A fatality reduction target is a km. Most countries set only one target figure. which has only a recommendation status. Korea. reducing by 50% the number of road fatalities by the year 2010 compared to 2001. Subsequently. NZ.

-50% by 2012 Italy No national target Netherlands Less than 580 fatalities by 2020. Finland Less than 250 fatalities by 2010.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 Table 3. which is -50% compared to 2001 (figure for 2007 was 4620) Estonia No more than 100 fatalities by 2015 compared to 2003 Germany No national target but states sometimes do (NRW: -50% in fatalities by 2015) Bulgaria -50% fatalities by 2010 compared to 1991. Slovak Republic -50% fatalities by 2010 compared to 2002.2. Denmark -40% fatalities and seriously injured by 2012 compared to 1998. no more than 4000 by 2007. Sweden -50% fatalities by 2007 compared to 1996 21/08/2008 20 Final . -38%) Hungary -50% fatalities and injury accidents by 2015 compared to 2001 Cyprus -50% fatalities by 2010 compared to 2001 of 1999.2003 Greece HE -50% fatalities by 2010 compared to 2000 Spain -40% fatalities by 2008 compared to 2003. i. Slovenia -50% fatalities by 2005 compared to 1995. -20% less injuries. Czech Republic -50% in fatalities by 2010 compared to 2002 Poland Less than 3500 fatalities in 2010 (compared to 5640 in 2003. A new target of 500 deaths by 2015 was proposed in the 2007 NRSP. Less than 100 fatalities by 2025 France Unofficially. or a maximum of 7 fatalities per 100 000 inhabitants (second indicator). Several sub targets Austria -50% fatalities by 2010 compared to 1998-2000. New target in line of EU target. Targets for user groups and road types UK No national target Ireland -25% fatalities by 2006 compared to 1998-2003 several sub targets Belgium -50% fatalities by 2010 compared to 1998-2000 (about 750) (first indicator). Portugal -50% fatalities by 2010 compared to 1998-2000 Several sub targets Romania -50% fatalities by 2012 compared to 2002. no more than 300 fatalities Switzerland -50% fatalities and -50% seriously injured by 2010 compared to 2000.e. Several sub targets. Safety Targets in most recent EU National Road Safety Plans Country Targets Latvia -50% fatalities and -20% injured persons by 2010. Target was not reached. -2004 -20% fatalities by 2006 Lithuania -50% fatalities and -20% injury accidents Luxembourg Malta -50 % fatalities and -50% injury accidents by 2014 compared to 2004 Norway -30% killed and seriously injured by 2015 compared to 2004.

and Netherlands use absolute numbers and some (e. For example. as research warrants them) will continue the downwards trend in fatalities.160) within only six years. For example. such as high-risk site treatments. and few set out also intermediate targets for shorter terms. such as 1999. the Czech NRSP lists the contribution of speeding.000 yearly fatalities on French roads.000 fatalities in 2005. while a few countries such as Denmark and Hungary extend the target to injuries as well. which reached to just under 5. in their own safety plans. principally along the west.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 An examination of the safety targets in National Road Safety Plans shows that most countries report to have accident reduction targets fairly similar to ECMT or EC targets. Estonia. For example. Finland. Most countries refer to the year 2010 or 2012 as the target year. even though the choice of action areas was guided by the anticipated potential for safety gains (fatality reduction). in Cyprus it would mean 77 down from 86 fatalities in the year 2006).2001. Ministerial or Agency programs sometimes set fatality reduction targets. There is no formal NRSP or national safety target in Germany. drink-driving.g. the Cyprus NRSP does not specify a target for the reduction of fatalities through TLE. based on assessment of behaviors involved in accidents. of what enforcement could achieve.east divide. Latvia and Lithuania have different target values for fatalities and injuries.no more than 4. as it would be near impossible to separate the unique contribution of each area of activity at a national level when all action programs are implemented at the same time. This unofficial Target was announced in 2005. Most NRSPs do not specify fatality reduction targets by area of action. Although France has not adopted a road safety target officially. However. This is probably a prudent approach. enforcement or medical services. The reference year is either a single recent year or the mean of three to four recent years. non use of restraints and other traffic violations to 21/08/2008 21 Final . Targets are typically based on the percentage change (from a reference year) in numbers of fatalities and/or injuries. Cyprus. All countries have targets for fatalities. following the large drops in fatalities and injuries beginning in 2002. Nevertheless. Denmark) mention also the numerical representation of the % change. Perhaps one reason for the reluctance of the Federal Government to commit to a National Target is the present reality of large differences in safety situation (and perhaps capacity to improve it) among states. Sometimes (implied) specific targets for TLE in the NRSP are actually estimates of potential. But the Cyprus Traffic Police document “Annual Strategic Plan for Facing the Traffic Problem In 2007” does set a specific target for a reduction of 10% in fatalities in 2007 compared to 2006 (in absolute numbers. following the practice recommended by the EC. The federal government maintains that persistent implementation of the current hundreds of specific safety measures in all areas (with occasional new ones. IF it was 100% effective in elimination of those behaviors. the Minister in charge of the French NRSP challenged the nation to an ambitious new objective for 2007. This would mean a 50% reduction compared to 2001 figure (8. North Rhine Westphalia developed its own regional RSP and established a target of halving the fatalities by 2015. some federal states (Länder) do adopt specific fatality reduction targets.

or vehicle standards that will lead to automatic activation and turning off of lights. Nevertheless. many of the measures. For example. Table 3. vehicles. and a category that includes a mix of policy & management targets and tools. in as much as it may involve educating drivers to activate the lights during the day. 6% and 25%. is a typical example of areas selected for focused attention in a National Road Safety Plan. The items in the cells in the Table are not intended to be conceptually or practically independent. respectively. The Priority Table 3. but not committing to reach such targets. especially those addressing Human 21/08/2008 22 Final . is listed under Human Behavior. as 14%. Police quoted those figures in its budget requests suggesting the potential benefit TLE could have. However. a relatively simple safety measure.Road Safety Inspection wheelers Following distances Safety in motorway roadwork zones Daytime running lights Material properties of road surfaces Traffic education Road-side Telematics The issues are classified in four general areas.3. it may also require proper legislation. Priority Areas of the Austrian Road Safety Program Human Behavior Infrastructure Vehicles Policy + Frameworks Restraint systems Black spot treatment Accident data recorder Independent Accident Analysis Alcohol and other drugs Safety on rural roads Lorry safety Heavy goods transport Driving speeds Tunnel safety Passive vehicle safety Legislation Basic driver education and advanced driver training Wrong-way driving on motorways Regional planning Pedestrian safety Safety management in urban areas Influencing modal choice Driving fatigue Road Safety Audit Drivers of motorized two.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 fatal accidents.3.human behavior. Table 3.3 The important role of TLE in National Road Safety Plans Road Safety Plans or Strategies address a wide range of safety problems and safety measures on a number of overlapping dimensions. enforcement. 4%. infrastructure. 3. taken from an Austrian Road Safety Program. Daytime Running Lights. which cut across several areas.3 above does not have a category or a measure that directly refers to policing or enforcement. Also the Finnish plan estimates that the fatality reduction potential of TLE is about 22%.

if any. higher penalties. Italy Netherlands 21/08/2008 Extend speed “section control” 23 Monitoring and updating mechanism Yes. point system.4 provides an overview of main TLE initiatives in recent NRSPs. More forceful TLE is expected to induce the increase in restraint use. control of professional drivers. penalty point system. Media Yes No yes yes Country Czech Republic Notable attributes and focus of the NRSP with respect to Human Behavior area and TLE “More efficient TLE”based on legislative support. extended coverage of the road network with unpredictable pattern in space and time. in recent European NRSPs Funds linked to the plan Public involvement Latvia Yes Yes Lithuania Yes Yes Traffic Safety Commission session at least twice a year discussing problems and solutions No Media and debate Annual Evaluation Yes No Yes. were created to assess to implementation of TLE initiatives and their behavioral and safety impacts. and what monitoring mechanisms.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 Behavior problems or measures.rate of seat belts and a 95% compliance with child restraint use. some automatic speed and RL cameras. Table 3. Media No No Yes. Table 3. it is stated that the safety target is to achieve a 10% increase in the use. and TLE at black spot locations. belt and helmet use. belt and helmet use. funding. more money available for programs that follow the NRSP. DD. TLE of d-d. For example. Safety Campaigns. funding provisions for the plans. TLE focus. compliance surveys.4. Poland Cyprus Setting up administrative and legal tools to manage safety. rely on the use of TLE as part of the solution to the problem. Greece Spain Enhance enforcement of Speeding. special monitoring unit for the NRSP planned Biannual assessment Observatory Indicators associated with key actions. large increase in number of Traffic Policemen. in further sections of the plan. Zero tolerance to violation of traffic rules by young drivers. public involvement and monitoring. but regular funding mechanisms. the extent of public involvement in their formulation or dissemination. Increase of drink-driving tests. cameras and radars. in the priority area of “Restraint Systems”. Final .

No since 2006. seat belt use and several specific violations with potential for automatic enforcement. speeding and seat belt use. fast-track and standardized sanctions procedures. Research evaluation every 4 years Bulgaria Developing the legal framework and administrative tools for enforcement in general." Continues a policy of promoting over 100 measures covering many problem areas. point system. Limited monitoring UK General awareness and specific issues are raised Ireland Mandatory BAC test of every accident. following. Yes Yes Yes. semi. The usual process Media The usual process Estonia New Traffic Branch and Enforcement units in police force . incentives for local projects in line with NRSP measures. Road Safety Media and Fund co-finances debate local police by returning % of the revenues One time Monitoring projects of speeds. since 2005. Federal “Program for Improved Road Safety. Yes. strengthening regulations & inspections. more efficient enforcement of drink-driving. Speed and Drink driving enforcement intensified.random breath tests.. increased sanctions and follow up. “point system” update Yes. belt use. and copies of the plan are sent to the counties and municipality administrations Research evaluation every 4 years Switzerland Increased traffic controls. EU & World Bank No funding and plans for new local funding Only Accidents Germany No “vision”plan. “section”automatic speed enforcement. public opinions Denmark Intensified police efforts targeting drink-driving. drinkdriving. BAC down from 0. RBT. speeding. improve “poor safety attitudes”. generally more funding for transport Media 3 year research evaluation Sweden 21/08/2008 24 Final . d-d. drink-driving. belt use Yes. and for speed d-d and belt enforcement. increasing size of fines. campaigns. % of speeding fines go to police Media and debate Research evaluation of specific measures. No Media.speeding. in particular.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 Country Notable attributes and focus of the NRSP with respect to Human Behavior area and TLE Funds linked to the plan Public involvement Monitoring and updating mechanism Austria Support de-centralization of safety management to federal states. belt use. regions and local government.8 mg/ml to 0.5 mg/ml. semiautomatic speed and RL enforcement. Yes Belgium Areas of emphasis (“attention points”) for enforcement. Strong linking of Traffic policing and public campaigns.distance.

the NRSPs are also concerned with building the capacity of the institutions of TLE. The proposed means to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of TLE in these areas include general reference to “intensify”police enforcement in these areas. perhaps “more of it”. d-d. with the exception of reference to massive automatic speed enforcement. continue deployment of semiautomatic fixed speed cameras. Automatic speed control systems. conducting seat belt enforcement campaigns. Another focus area is increasing the impact of police enforcement by raising sanctions on speeding and drink.g. and increasing the coordination of police enforcement with public media campaigns. strong public awareness Yes. Cyprus. as in France or Spain.1 TLE focus areas in National Road Safety Plans In broad terms. Drink-Driving and drug control. The Czech Republic plan. These problem areas. such as fine collection.g. hot public issue Observatory and research evaluation 3. using their usual methods. In the new EU Member States (e. and by improving follow-up actions in the enforcement chain. regulations regarding professional drivers. stricter follow-up.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 Country Notable attributes and focus of the NRSP with respect to Human Behavior area and TLE Funds linked to the plan Public involvement Monitoring and updating mechanism Finland Speed. lists the following as main road safety issues in the country: 21/08/2008 25 Final . and by securing stable funding. just about all EU countries have assimilated the EC position about the centrality of efficient enforcing of speeding. speeding on rural roads) or a road user group (e.use of belts (and helmets) in the strategy for reducing road fatalities.level. use regular agency budget Media Continuous research evaluation France Focus on speed. raising the number of alcohol tests (random or otherwise). restraints and helmets. National Road Safety Plans and TLE plans always refer to other top. professional truck drivers or young drivers) are mentioned in the policy document.g.safety. facilitated funding procedures. police are expected to deal with the noncompliance behaviors relevant to the issue.driving. administrative law. tougher sanctions. less leniency. investment in automatic speed enforcement systems Intensive media campaigns. increased reliance on automatic speed enforcement. When a target area (e. huge political support. introduce more effective sanction systems No. are mentioned in all NRSPs.3. or target behaviors.issues in addition to the three or four (with cross border enforcement) focus issues recommended by the EC. Czech Republic). by re-defining the best organization of Traffic Police forces or functions.driving and non. more than in others. setting up point systems and better handling of repeat violators. Top political figures in the media. for example. drink. NRSPs do not usually address the methods of police operations. Estonia. through provision of the needed legislative supports for TLE. lowering speed limits and drink-driving thresholds. Bulgaria.

Safety on motorways. Seat belts and child restraint devices in general. Visibility of vulnerable road users. alcohol and drugs w Reducing accidents in professional transport by better regulation.g. training and licensing w Increase the impact of enforcement by creating more effective sanctions and follow-up (e. Safety on railway crossings. Therefore. and will adapt them to the needs and conditions in each state. w Prepare for new Directives and Recommendations by EU and EC in the area of transport and safety. Safety in urban areas. traffic management and speed control w Reducing accidents involving intoxicants. the NRSP identified four main reasons for the accidents: inappropriate speed. Bulgaria’s traffic police had collected only six percent of the fines imposed on traffic violators. and develop the cooperation mechanisms with other countries and the EU institutes w Reducing head on collisions on main roads. The recent Finnish program includes the following main policy goals of the program: w Improve cooperation between the agencies responsible for the program. speeding is a traffic behavior that is contributing to the lack of safety on motorways) and no priority is implied by the order of the items in the list. Each state will choose what measures to adopt. management. The issues concern different dimensions that can overlap (for example.driving w Protect vulnerable road users 21/08/2008 26 Final . particularly w Improve speed compliance and avoid drink. Increased or improved traffic enforcement is offered as one of the road safety initiatives to address each of these problems. partial owner responsibility). by better enforcement and technological means w Reducing pedestrian and cyclist accidents in urban areas by better urban planning. Drinking and driving of young drivers. enforcement. even with the small fines. In Federal countries the government’s role is primarily facilitating the implementation of policy suggestions by the states (or Cantons in Switzerland) local governments. driving without a license and small penalties for such offences. But note that drink. According to the Bulgarian National Audit Office (BNAO).PEPPER Deliverable 6 w w w w w w w Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 Speeding. In Bulgaria. it is not surprising that Bulgaria’s safety policy focuses on creating the legal. alcohol consumption.driving is seventh in the list and not one of the first three. higher fines. The recent German Federal policy identified the following major goals: w Improve the behavior of all road users. organizational and financial framework for enabling police to perform their tasks effectively.

other agencies. drink-driving and non. Similarly. Among the more specific TLE measures the policy advocates are: w w w w w w w w Extension of 30 km/h zones in built-up areas Lowering the speed-limit on rural roads Local speed cameras Intensify enforcement of drink. or Germany. and reinforce the penalty point system and other follow up measures. Other significant safety actions in the French NRSP deal with novice drivers. increase fines. lower BAC limits for professional drivers). the Czech Republic. is special in that it relies very heavily and explicitly on TLE as the major mechanism to achieve the objective of reducing accidents dramatically in a short period of time. and a whole program of road safety audits. Specific actions included enabling legislation (e. the police forces. As this effort produced immediate results. safety oriented infrastructure improvements on state roads. It practically vows to increase police enforcement of these and other traffic offences. including TLE agencies.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 w Reduce the accident rate for young drivers w Reduce the accident potential of heavy vehicles w Improve road safety on motorways. it served to rally French politicians. of course. higher fines. registration of mopeds.driving. none of the measures advocated are new to the German safety management inventory. demonstrate.g. vehicle inspections. as well as mandatory mechanisms to oblige urban communities to improve safety on their roads. The German safety strategy is based on continuous implementation efforts of a wide range of evidence-based measures in all problem areas and by all agencies. putting into service large number of advanced fixed and mobile speeding detection equipment. massive public information about road safety and TLE actions. Clearly. the media and the public. alcohol interlocks Conduct frequent campaigns linked to the enforcement efforts Enforce seat belt and helmet use Introduce on-the-spot fines for licensing and tachograph offences by heavy goods vehicles and buses w Strengthen the enforcement of compulsory rest periods for drivers of heavy goods vehicles. shifting most of violations from criminal court process to administrative procedure. Instead. raising the number of police officers on active TLE duties. The French NRSP identifies speeding. owner liability. to the support of TLE. a NRSP might define a behavior safety target of increasing 21/08/2008 27 Final . instituting efficient semiautomatic systems for processing citations and collecting fines. but also support other measures and initiatives included in the NRSP. as in the examples from Austria. a “speeding problem” might be mentioned and the intent to put more policing effort in controlling it. drugs screening devices. The French NRSP of 2002 and its yearly updates. Traffic Law Enforcement is always a significant component of NRSPs (or of similar policy statements such as in Germany or the United Kingdom) even if it is not always referred as such directly. drunk pedestrians.use of seat belt as main causes of road fatalities. Adopt quick-testing breathalyzers. The determined upgrading of the whole TLE chain has improved substantially its efficiency and effectiveness. particularly that of losing a driving license.

for example. and specify that TLE. if it lacks valid funding provisions. but without specifying the actual expected costs. 21/08/2008 28 Final . provides a general framework for specialized action programs that are to be developed by the responsible agencies. fuel taxes. The Czech Republic’s NRSP. the 2nd NRSP of Cyprus.game for public funds. drink-driving and seat belt use (including campaigns). The authors suppose that funds will be allocated. could remain just an interesting document (although even a mere document could inspire better policy action). which is always limited. either by increased treasury allocations or through special funding schemes linked to road taxes. Some countries provide extra funds for special road safety action plans. the NRSP was allocated €420 million per annum. A well reasoned NRSP. should induce the behavioral change. the ministerial budgeting cycle takes place every two years. Police districts in Belgium are thus encouraged to submit annual TLE action plans in those areas.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 the use of seat belts or reducing the incidence of drink. the ministry of Justice and Public Order in Cyprus is then charged with developing action programs in the spirit of the NRSP and include their funding as part of overall budget request. It then submits funding requests through the mandatory public budgeting process in the country with the officially approved NRSP as a reference document that help justify the financial demands. for example. along with public media campaigns. money collected by traffic fines is put into a Federal Road Safety Fund (RSF).3. and suggest that there is a need to find in near future other sources of financing. Financial assistance will also be sought from EU funds and from the private sector. vehicle insurance or traffic violation fines. of which €140 million was marked for enforcement and sanctioning systems. for the period 2007 –2010. For example. including contributions from the private sector. In the area of enforcement. 3. economic and other factors in the power. Most NRSPs in EU countries do not include special funding provisions for the plan. respectively. This fund gives financial support to police services (both federal and local) for specific road safety actions and according to actual performance. In 2004. The success of the requests depends on the many political. in Belgium. In Cyprus.2 Funding Funding is a major implementation tool of public policy. The most common way of handling the funding issue is for every ministry that takes prime responsibility for certain area in the Plan. states that the financing of the plan will burden the budget of state.driving. For example. In Germany the National Road Administration and the local authorities (Länder) are responsible for implementation and financing of the measures to improve road safety on the federal and non-federal road network. counties and municipalities. In addition. €42 million were returned to the police for enforcement of speeding. and not because of overlooking the need or lack of trying. It is simply due to the regulated and political complexity of public funding in each country and the fact that “road safety” or “traffic enforcement” is just one of many socially worthy competitors for public funding. to refer to the NRSP when it develops its specific policies and action programs.

The process is not uni-directional. in all countries. bill-boards. the public and even the media editors. random breath testing was rejected in the United Kingdom. as decision makers.g. 21/08/2008 29 Final . funding issues. and more specifically by TLE agencies. Estonia) reported a reduction in the number of police units or personnel dedicated to traffic policing. The extent of informing and involving. interest groups and private citizens debate safety policies. where more police officers are considered generalists. at all levels of government. 3. At the minimum it may consist of few. the actual behavioral consequences of TLE and their safety impacts. politicians. to influence and. since police manpower for traffic enforcement depends on what happens in other fields of local enforcement. who can shift to different police tasks. Accurate knowledge about the reasons for TLE.such as driving slower. the process of TLE. busses. were publicly debated and sometimes rejected. During the implementation phases of specific TLE measures. public involvement. primarily via the mass media. public opinion. The media is used to inform.3. newspapers. expresses. Legislators. In all EU countries various media are used by the government.3 Public involvement Public involvement in formulating and implementing a National Road Safety Plan takes many forms. During periodic topical enforcement campaigns. This is so because most of the instruments used in TLE are restrictive or punitive for the citizens. are believed to help internalizing the norms of correct and legal traffic / driving behavior. and because TLE is about changing human behavior. While in all EU countries there was general support by the public for making TLE more efficient and fair. buckling up even when it is not convenient. is crucial in order to increase awareness and to impart relevant information to the public about the expected behavior on the roads and the consequences of non.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 A number of countries (e. there will be a linked mass media campaign on radio. to some degree. legal actions. through formal negotiation or consultation mechanisms and in the Media at large. each try to influence the others. Public involvement is particularly important in the case of TLE. many specific proposals for changing the legal status quo or the procedures for TLE in a given country. Switzerland. to inform the public at large about a NRSP and about the new initiatives in the area of TLE. TV. drinking less or not at all. and until recently also in France. This situation makes it more difficult to reliably implement a TLE plan. One consequence of the shifting social priorities is a return to an earlier. web – as finances will allow. This trend is felt since the early 1990’s with the economic pressures to reduce public spending and greater importance given by the public to protection from criminal activities. if possible. however. For example.time news item and a webpage with the basic information. varies considerably among countries.compliance. In all EU countries the political process. as needed. pre-specialized mode of police functioning. vehicle owner liability for automatically recorded speed violations were rejected in Nordic countries. stakeholders. to shape public policy and public behavior.

3. This also implies that the monitoring and assessment need to be on a large scale. In the field of TLE. Such measures can indicate the extent that TLE plans are actually implemented and whether their behavioral or organizational effects are in the expected direction. In France. “monitoring”refers to a specific mechanism for monitoring the process of implementing the policies and action plans of a NRSP (especially the parts dealing with TLE). conducting N million Random Breath Tests annually. that is. France) engage in repeated. the number of issued. This means that a country wishing to monitor and assess the progress of its NRSP would need to define an organizational structure (newly created or within an existing research organization) and provide stable funding to carry out the monitoring and evaluation. The approach is to increase the common awareness that road safety is everyone's responsibility”(Personal communication). belt-use rates by vehicle occupants observed in systematic field surveys. also “evaluation” in the present context. transparent. Gendarmerie regional commanders and local police chiefs are invited to radio and TV programs at every opportunity to discuss safety and TLE and to communicate with the public. As in the case of “monitoring”. The media has paid more attention to road safety issues since the autumn of 2002. Furthermore. The Netherlands. emphasizes the repeated periodic or continuous impact assessment and not a one time research effort at an evaluation. together with increased media coverage.processed. continuous and interactive form of public involvement in safety initiatives and TLE through mass media and other channels such as surveys.4 Monitoring and Evaluation In the present context. carrying out N seat-belt enforcement campaigns. relatively simple and accepted by the professional community. the indicators might be new legal actions. Subsequently. speed patterns on various types of roads.g. the impressive impact on traffic behavior (and accidents) was due to the huge publicity that accompanied automatic speed enforcement and generated a powerful change in behavior of road users. and be based on methods and tools that are standardized. A recent poll in France showed that 75% of the adult population is in favor of further development of the automatic speed enforcement system (Personal communication). some of these indicators might also be used in “evaluation”.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 Some countries (e. it should count and measure relevant performance indicators of the actions resulting from the policies. 21/08/2008 30 Final . was only a fourth of the number used in the United Kingdom (with roughly same population and smaller territory). assessing and interpreting the impact of the safety oriented policies and actions on the ultimate measure of their success –the number of fatalities. 3. The monitoring is supposed to go beyond a yearly count of road accidents and fatalities.and paid traffic citations. town-hall meetings or direct mailings. installation of N hundreds of automatic speed cameras. it is claimed that “The change in the political agenda and public awareness. it was observed that although the number of speed cameras in France at the end of 2005. and many other measures. nationally (or regionally) representative. has been a main factor in defining and implementing new road safety measures in France in recent years.

alcohol and seat belt use. and are entered into several databases1. although many others are planning to have them (http://www. and to measure the indicators associated with the key actions.eu/data/Content/introduction. and almost nothing is known about their relationship to population. In Spain.erso. 2007). The concept of Road Safety Observatory is perhaps the closest to the needed entity to monitor and assess the relevant safety performance (or TLE performance) indicators in a country. restraints use. These are a one time projects and not a continuous monitoring mechanism. sometimes with a research project to assess the outcomes of the measure. only few countries (France.erso. Spain.citations records. Where specific safety measures are mandated by a NRSP. The following measurable indicators were defined for some of the specific objectives: w w w w w w w w Fatalities in accidents per million inhabitants Changes in the ratio number of speed controls / sanctions Changes in the ratio number of drink-driving controls / sanction Reduction of random speeds Reduction of positive alcohol tests Changes in % of occupants using restraints Changes in drivers (and non-drivers) opinions about road safety Black spots reduction The Spanish NRSP list 182 Key Actions.compliance. The common situation in all European countries is that accident data are collected routinely.the quantitative objectives [e. motorcycles and others. However. drinking and driving or belt use. Observers in France pointed out how having monitoring system and indicators helps police and other convince the public (and politicians) to accept further measures for advancing safety. The Netherlands) have several elements of such systems in place. There are 26 specific strategic objectives related to speed. The SafetyNet project has also addressed these issues (SafetyNet. Therefore.eu/data/content/european_databases. the mere fact that a country has an active safety research program (list of various projects on a 1 see ERSO http://www.g. fatality reduction targets].PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 Working Papers 23 and 24 of PEPPER discuss in more detail monitoring and evaluation needs and measurement issues of Enforcement Performance Indicators (EPI) and Safety Performance Indicators (SPI).htm 21/08/2008 31 Final .wide and networkwide non. “A major advantage in this regard is that behavioral indicators on speed. Figures proving the success of the new measures could be presented to the public without delay”. Many countries also collect limited data on some of the indicators related to speeds. they are often introduced first as experiment or pilot project. Associated to the 182 Key Actions there are some relevant Activity Indicators and Performance Indicators. the National Road Safety Observatory is the responsible organization to identify and assess the best practices and to measure and follow up –on a biannual basis. black spots.htm). Data on other non-compliance behaviors are typically available only as a by-product of administrative violation. drink-driving. and indicators for traffic accidents have been available in France for some time. young drivers. many in the area of TLE.

and provides several suggestions for good practice in this area. in principle. governs the rules of conduct by drivers and other road users. Traffic law also empowers police. 21/08/2008 32 Final . is not the same as providing in the NRSP for a monitoring and evaluation system. various administrative bodies and the courts (the 3-D boxes) to engage in their respective functions in the enforcement chain. and is schematically depicted in Figure 3.1. each assigned to collect some statistical data that might be considered.1 Traffic Law Enforcement Chain. from general surveillance to particular follow-up on specific traffic violators.4.The schematic model The implied conceptual model of TLE underlying the EC Recommendation on Enforcement is based on what might be termed the Criminal Theory of Deterrence. The legal framework of Traffic Law.4 Basic attributes of Traffic Policing Systems in EU countries 3.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 variety of subjects) or that that are several government bodies. as a safety indicator. Working paper 24 by WP4 of PEPPER offers a more detailed analysis of TLE monitoring and assessment issues. in all its forms. 3. The figure shows the main (generic) institutions involved in the enforcement chain and the common sequence of functions in the chain.1. as described in the oval elements in Figure 3.

The knowledge. however. manual & automatic Police Enforcement Traffic Law Traffic Law Traffic Law Legislation General Surveillanc e Non complying drivers. the social mechanism of general deterrence. It is believed that the mere presence of police reminds people of the law and increases compliance level (depicted by the going up dashed arrows). It is not known. which essentially means police being seen on the roads. fixed fines. how many would continue doing it if there were no police to enforce the law. there would be no need for police to actively enforce traffic law. other sanctions Administrative Fixed fines & Administrative bodies & units sanctions Violation Detection General deterrence Checks. 21/08/2008 33 Final . vehicle & violation follow. drink-driving and seatbelt use. many Figure 3. An overview of TLE enforcement chain & deterrence mechanisms. However. for the most part. The first and most elementary function in traffic policing is general surveillance. what is known in criminal theory. aided by technology and automatic when possible.up Punishment. Many road users (box on top left corner). General Surveillance and active driver / vehicle checks are believed to increase compliance through.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 Increasingly fewer noncomplying road users Road users Complying with traffic laws Courts M edia & inform information ation am amplify plify im impacts pacts Specific deterrence Driver. This is particularly important with respect to enforcing speed. induces more drivers to comply with traffic law. Had all drivers behaved according to the letter and intent of the law.1. indeed comply with the law. as the Recommendation on Enforcement clearly states. more effective traffic policing entails systematic active checks. just because it is the law and the logical thing to do. and experience of being checked.

special handling of recidivists (such as by point systems) or administration of alternative forms of sanctions (such as alcoholism rehabilitation of drink-driving violators. enforcement chain for 21/08/2008 34 Final . This is why the provision of information to drivers and all road users is considered here as a “horizontal institution” in the enforcement chain. interpersonal communication.depicted by the dashed arrow between the two boxes. the Recommendation suggested (in the Annex) a long list of variables that need to be monitored by police agencies. non. and in criminal theory the punishment handed to the individual driver is supposed to induce specific deterrence (decreased inclination to repeat the violation). 3. The last function in the enforcement chain involves follow up on the implementation of the sanctions (such as actual payment of fines. seatbelt.1). drink-driving. in Figure 3. recording and processing the violations and making drivers (or vehicle owners) accountable for the violations. and cross-border violations. when the practical operational implications of reporting on a National Enforcement Plan and on enforcement performance indicators (as the Recommendation on Enforcement is asking) are considered. Thus. is detecting traffic violations by specific drivers / vehicles.2 Traffic Law Enforcement Chain. depending on the severity of the violation and other factors. There are two main tracks for netting out consequences to traffic violations . However. relatively uniform. At a conceptual schematic level. The first element is the necessity of having a detailed and spelled out National Traffic Enforcement Plan. there is a feedback loop from Specific deterrence to General deterrence. as it relates to driver behavior. and sanctions imposed through the court system. addressing each of the priority areas and the methods of accomplishing each of the functions in the enforcement chain. Information serves to amplify individual or local impacts (deterrence) of all enforcement functions in the chain. According to criminal theory the “individual lesson”is generalized to other types of violations.) The special role of media. within and across countries.The more complex reality The Recommendation on Enforcement added two important elements to the basic model of the enforcement chain. helping to increase compliance with traffic law. and direct on.sanctions imposed by administrative bodies (such as driver licensing administration). the model of the enforcement chain superimposed with a planning and evaluation functions is straight forward enough.driving when license was suspended or revoked).4. For that purpose. The second element is the necessity to quantitatively assess the progress of enforcement efforts along the chain. and evaluate the impact of enforcement actions on compliance and on safety. and other people learn from the experience of the punished violator. It is expected that the National Enforcement Plan will be derived from a NRSP.site enforcement related information to drivers is depicted in Figure 3.1 by the 3-D box on the left side. All sanctions are a form of punishment. the notion of one single.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 The next step in the enforcement chain. with emphasis on the four target priority areas of speed.

. Limited data unless injury involved No CP Poland Admin. drink. 80 districts. violation Observatory will be CP Mixed. unless injury involved Hungary Administrative. annual tactical operation plan Local wisdom and HQ plan Greece Spain Limited data No CP Fully Criminal except parking National Police (Guardia Civil de Tráfico) Local Police. Annex).driving & belt enforcement. drink-driving and belt. shifting to more criminal 35 Final . local wisdom Fully administrative Czech Republic National. Selected attributes of TLE systems in EU countries Country Number and Central TLE organization of partly autonomous Plan police agencies What determines Local TLE plan Latvia Legal status of Traffic law EC type data on speed. Differences among countries are even larger. priorities and principles Local wisdom and Head Quarters (HQ) plan Administrative. A country may have more than one traffic police force.5. Table 3. local traffic safety commissions. more than one enforcement plan. behavior injury or serious indicators. 330 local Yes.5 presents the status of TLE in EU countries. particularly regarding speeding. Table 3. unless injury involved Cyprus Cyprus Traffic Police Yes. with respect to selected attributes that are relevant to the implementation of EC Recommendation on Enforcement: w w w w w The structure of Traffic Police forces and the extent of autonomy they have The existence and duration of a national TLE plan Are local TLE plans determined by a national plan? The legal status of traffic law in a country –criminal or administrative. yearly National TLE plan adapted to local needs Italy 21/08/2008 Fully Criminal No CP Administrative unless Observatory. or many semiautonomous police districts with different traffic policing strategies and tactics. Coordination Point (CP) Admin. and separate data-bases that vary in the nature and scope of their contents.use (EC Recommendation. a number of co-existing legal systems. unless injury involved Lithuania Traffic police has about 500 officers Yes NRSP. Are there databases and collecting mechanisms for Enforcement Performance Indicators that are suggested by the EC.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 each country is clearly not accurate. Autonomous police Regions (Basque and Catalonia) Yes.

No EU Mixed. 100+ Local Police bodies. National Police Board (NBP) is the central administrative and supervisory authority of the police service. few others Partially. & local No Local wisdom and NRSP priorities Administrative. and local may 50 independent have own plans traffic police authorities Local wisdom and NRSP priorities backed up by incentives Limited data. 21/08/2008 Mixed 36 Final . 16 states. Legal framework is Federal CP. priorities and principles Local wisdom and NRSP priorities. HQ policy and Local wisdom Mixed. priorities and principles NRSP priorities. customs police National Plan dominant factor. The Swedish Police Road Safety Policy (February 2007) Switzerland There are more than No. Limited data. Regions develop own plans Fully Criminal Limited data. Tri-yearly. Yes. Some States have Local wisdom and HQ policy Mixed. drink. border police.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Country Dissemination Level: PU Number and organization of Central TLE partly autonomous Plan police agencies What determines Local TLE plan Netherlands Austria Contract No: 019744 Legal status of Traffic law EC type data on speed. 2005). No EU CP. Traffic units in large cities. depending on severity of violation Limited data. Coordination Point (CP) Mostly administrative with list of exceptions Traffic police. Police. who is appointed by the Government Yes. No CP Sweden 21. No CP Finland Yes. five plan Provincial commands. HQ plan and local adaptation Criminal Very limited data. But details Canton specific. Capital city. local details Criminal. depending on severity of violation Limited data. Wallonia . 196 local Yes. overload. 90 local districts. No CP yet Estonia Centralized National Yes. Flanders. Copenhagen.Brussels. No injury involved CP Germany Federal. Cantons. nine federal states. No CP Denmark National Commissioner. National Traffic & yearly action Police. 54 districts and sub-districts. No CP. administrative exceptions: parking. Bulgaria Central “National Police Service” No Local wisdom Administrative unless Very limited data. No CP unless injury involved UK Fully criminal Ireland Fully criminal Fair amount of Local data. 26 subzones.driving & belt enforcement. It is headed by the National Police Commissioner. CP for all local police (Traffic Law. CP for all local police Belgium Federal Police (motorways). hundreds districts No. yearly and police tri-monthly.

it does not necessarily mean that all police districts (or sub-units) are required to operate in exactly the same way.3 Organization of traffic Police forces Even though TLE police forces are hierarchical military like organizations. and under the control of different government ministries. Some countries have a National Police Force that is organized in territorial districts under a common organizational structure and command chain. It is always the case with Federal countries. separate accounting and so on. drink. including traffic control. separate management and operation databases. No CP. yearly What determines Local TLE plan National Plan dominant factor Contract No: 019744 Legal status of Traffic law Administrative Exceptions: injury. Many countries have more than one police force and more than one Traffic police force.4. The force may have its own sub- 21/08/2008 37 Final . which is under the direct command of the Traffic Branch of Police HQ. but is not typically involved in the daily operations. it may be necessary to collect information from several police bodies and figure out how to combine it at a national level. driving without valid license EC type data on speed. each organized in somewhat different manner. which provides the policy.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Country France Dissemination Level: PU Number and organization of Central TLE partly autonomous Plan police agencies 3 agencies: Gendarmerie national (Ministry of Defence). This situation means that in order to find out exactly what traffic police in a country has planned in a given period. Because of the special demands of Traffic Control. units which are under the direct command of the local territorial police district. etc. At HQ levels there is a professional branch for Traffic control operations. Police municipal Yes. guidelines. Each district and sub-districts is responsible for all policing functions in its territory. how has it impacted on traffic behavior and on safety. what it has actually done. Cross-border coordination points CCPD 3. At any time they might be called on to perform various policing tasks other than direct traffic law enforcement. most National Police Forces provide for specialized traffic units in large cities. serious violation. Coordination Point (CP) Observatory Partially. responsible for different or overlapping areas. for performing Traffic policing.driving & belt enforcement. Multiple police forces means that there may be separate communications networks. what it has accomplished. training. Police national (ministry of Interior). Local commanders might have quite a bit of formal or informal level of autonomy in planning their tactical operations and sometimes even in the way they allocate their resources to different functions. A National Traffic Police force is dedicated to do traffic control on the major national roadway network. with well defined command lines and duty to obey higher level commands. Another common response to the need for continuous TLE on busy interurban roads was the establishment of some form of a National Traffic Police force.

National Traffic Police has its own TLE plans set by it's commander and planners. such as protecting the president. take part in traffic monitoring along with the other units (speed and tailgating monitoring). The police in Denmark. with a central command and branches in each large city. that do not have their own local police.g. Essentially similar structure exists in Denmark. The aerial gendarme. The police command line consists of National Police Commissioner. In several countries there are administratively separate police forces for. The department-level gendarmes are grouped into near 100 territorial units and specialized road police units.urban roads. It has sub-units in the provincial commands. but it also operates in coordination and cooperation with each general police districts that contains its roads. It has other special tasks as well. there is a National Traffic Police to patrol the inter-urban roads.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 units. The mobile gendarmes can be called in as reinforcements for the department-level gendarmes and carry out some traffic police duties.districts. there are about 100 Local Police Authorities or Community Police. under the control of the Minister for Justice. roughly. facilities and communication network. both as a general task and with specialized units. 21/08/2008 38 Final . but is also responsible to traffic (and other aspects of police work) in small villages / communities along the roads. and in large cities the local police has specialized units for traffic policing. Its main responsibility is to do traffic policing on the major motorways and other non. The National Traffic Police is under direct command of police HQ and is operating in whole country. The national police force is organized around five provincial commands and 90 local districts. France provides an example of the above type of system. crime prevention) on the most major part of the road network. in addition to the urban and rural police forces also a National Traffic Police dedicated to traffic control and other policing task (e. In recent years near 15% of the Gendarmerie’s activity was considered Traffic Policing. In Urban areas. with several helicopters. In additions there is border police and Customs police for the border areas. the Faroe Islands and Greenland constitute one National force. In addition. in urban areas and garde champetre in rural communities The Gendarmerie is responsible for all policing in interurban areas thus also covering about 95% of the road network. the commissioner of the Copenhagen Police and the chief constables of 12 police districts and 42 sub. In addition. France also has several smaller police entities: w Gendarmerie Nationale (under the control of Ministry of Defense) w Police Nationale (Ministry of Interior) w Police municipale. the national local district of the general police do also traffic work. Some countries have. Finland is an example of such police structure. These plans are based on the government's resolution on safety and the National Police strategy. In the urban areas there is a different force.urban roads. urban and rural areas. It has two main police forces and each of them performs traffic policing. but even more intricate. (There used to be over 200 authorities but in recent years re-organization plan reduced the number to about 100). The rural police (Gendarmerie or Civil Guard) is patrolling mainly on inter.

composition of personnel. Police Municipale and Police Rurale are under the control of local government and have limited law enforcement powers outside of local traffic issues and local ordinance enforcement. It has a branch dedicated to traffic policing (Guardia Civil de Tráfico). command and control channels. is the urban police. The force is just a little smaller than the Gendarmerie. Smaller Police agencies with other main missions participate. and administration of vehicle and driving licenses. under the control of various (other than interior or justice) ministries. training. They include State security police (CRS).4 TLE plans at national and local levels While TLE is a significant component in most NRSPs. With the new systems of automatic speed or Red Light enforcement. which may be patrolling the roads for their own purposes. In Paris and some big metropolitan areas.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 The Police Nationale.4. These forces have to coordinate their communication networks. with outsourced maintenance. (It should be noted that the organizational structure of French police agencies. but there may be a trend to relegate more traffic control issues to the local authorities. in 473 of the larger cities. This complexity has obvious practical implications for implementing the EC Recommendations on Enforcement and collecting the data requested by it. and the above description may require updating. 3. Green police who focus on polluting vehicles. Ministry of Transport Police who focus on vehicle tax evasion or other transport regulations. including TLE. with those of the regular traffic police force. also in traffic policing. Customs Police and Border Police who focus on cross border traffic. yearly plans and daily operations. is currently undergoing changes. Examples include military police that focus on military vehicles. Ministry of Labor Police who focus on commercial drivers. In the bigger cities the Police Nationale has traffic units with vehicles and motorcycles. they are the largest police. There is a special central body (Department of public liberties and legal affairs) that administers the demerit point system and manages the resulting penalties and suspensions. The Traffic General Directorate manages traffic control centers and co-ordinates overall traffic management of the “Guardia Civil de Trafico”. especially with respect to traffic operations. range of territory and responsibilities. Collectively. there are bodies called “préfecture de police”that are in charge of all local road safety policies. in urban areas.) Also in Spain general Local Police are in charge of law enforcement. The potential sharing in the revenues is one incentive for the trend. Their functions may overlap in part. when called upon. equipment and other characteristics. command structure. traffic control. It may be more difficult than perhaps expected. a local force can take responsibility for the operation of such systems. not many countries reported having a National Traffic Law Enforcement strategy and plans derived from the National Road Safety 21/08/2008 39 Final . Then there is the Basque police and the Catalonia police who are in charge in those regions. The “Guardia Civil” are in charge of law enforcement in rural areas and on the national road network and on minor roads outside urban areas. Police Forces dealing with Traffic can be different in many ways. Customs.organizations. Many countries have smaller police forces. Border police.

PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 Plan and perhaps being in some way innovative and commensurate with the ambitious vision and safety targets contained in most NRSPs. topics that are covered by routine operations guidelines and decided by district chiefs. vehicle registrations. which describes the general actions for the following year. will usually prepare an annual work-plan for each branch of the police. overloading. Weigh In Motion) w Testing new methods of alcohol and drug detecting devices w Intensified surveillance of heavy-vehicle traffic (speeding. automatic Number Plate Reading. In Finland. high. seat belts and other safety devices. which is a parliamentary resolution and binding. In the Czech Republic a National Enforcement Plan. including traffic police. for example. securing cargo) In addition. The strategy emphasizes the following points: w It is part of national safety strategy w Enforcement must be is systematic and planned w TLE must be targeted to behaviors known to contribute to severe accidents w The focus areas are: speeding. The strategy plans do not go into police deployment plans and enforcement tactics. drink-driving. Accordingly. such as seat belt campaigns.wide enforcement actions. but the national TLE strategy is further adapted by each of the autonomous regions and by Local Police forces. drink –driving and belt use. Road Administration.g. pedestrian safety and reflector use campaigns. and other intensive efforts that involve mass media and work with other authorities and volunteers.risk drivers w Need for co-operation between National Traffic Police and Local Police w Need for co-operation with other authorities (e. In countries with national (centralized) police force. rest periods. The forces define their own TLE action plans in order to resolve the specific safety problems in their territories. Traffic Police together with other authorities formulate an annual operation plan which coordinates country. the National TLE plan is a 3 or 4 year strategy document. the last plan focuses on speeding. The enforcement plan takes into account the priorities set by the National Road Safety Strategy. the ministry responsible for Police. together with Police Headquarters. linked to the government's NRSP. In Spain. Tax authorities) Specific actions listed in the last plan include: w Strengthening automatic enforcement methods (including testing “section control”of speeding. the national traffic police (Guardia Civil de Tráfico) follow the guidelines of the National TLE plan. is prepared annually by police HQ. winter driving. Such plan serves as a guideline for more specific plans by police sub-units (typically geographic police districts and Local Police in urban communities). heavy vehicles. These priorities are then considered by 80 21/08/2008 40 Final .

UK. DE. the National Enforcement Plan does not go into the details of tactical deployment of police forces and methods. The Belgian National Safety Plan contains a chapter on traffic law enforcement. DK) the organizational structure of policing is such that each state. and that speed control should amount to at least 20% of the total work time. others disregarded it. It also identifies areas of emphasis (“attention points”) for enforcement. technical condition of the vehicles. public events and planned state-wide operations. In 2004. as the responsibility for traffic law enforcement is at Länder (states) level. districtswhatever the case may be. yearly or multi. In August 2003. drink-driving. For example.g. NL. In order to receive additional funding from the Federal Road Safety Fund. BASt) a National Enforcement Plan in line with the EC Recommendation. traffic management and signs. These new moves were well supported by public opinion. passenger and goods.speeding. SE. which specifies one major goal: increasing the subjective chance of being caught for a traffic law violation. It is perhaps a special case due to its small size and radical changes in police status and structure. road traffic and participants. It includes a general request to monitor roads fatalities.year traffic policing operations and sometimes even budgeting plans. In all countries. Estonia provides an example of a country with a National TLE plan that applies to local level as well and goes into deployment issues and not only general principles. It remains for each police district to plan the actual deployment of their police units and equipment to the best of their knowledge of local problems and needs.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 District Police Commanders. Some states draw new TLE plans with reference to the Federal TLE Plan. federal and centralized. a new Traffic Department was set up with the goal of increasing traffic policing on the roads.g. speeding and “aggressive driving”and concentrate enforcement there. The priorities set cover the road. A separate Traffic Police force was phased out in 2000 and road policing became the responsibility of every policeman. commands. a police unit (regional or local) needs to provide the Fund an action plan relating to these “attention points”. CZ. there are several co-ordination mechanisms among police forces. The National TLE plan requires that up to 50% of work time of traffic police personnel must be spent in active enforcement. in Germany the Federal Government developed (through its federal road research institute. Some mechanisms are very formalized (for example APCO- 21/08/2008 41 Final . It has an advisory status. in drawing up their local enforcement directives. PL. as well as in other countries with somewhat decentralized police systems (e. region or police district is autonomous to some degree and develops its own daily. In the Federal countries (e. CH). There are two planning periods: one year and three month period. A national enforcement plan is planned by the Ministry of Interior. a special Traffic Enforcement Unit was established within the police to co-ordinate alcohol and speed enforcement. seat belt use and few others. with different degrees of autonomy to police agencies. The Ministry of Interior is responsible for the police. However. during the start of the new NRSP.

Police Chiefs in charge of traffic operation in local districts will generate their own “paper plan” and daily operations directives. The Road Safety Commission.5 shows. The Traffic Department of the National Commissioner’s Office produces and annual TLE operations plan based. The coordination is regarding all aspects of policing. They believe (perhaps rightly so) that they know best the population. This is true for both centralized police systems and for federal 21/08/2008 42 Final . in the United Kingdom). and share a core of similar policies and practices. improved the processing of sanctions. In the United Kingdom. to be the best or optimal mix of TLE for their specific territory. As Table 3. APCO produces policy documents. Subsequently they design. For example. based upon criteria such as known dangerous roads and roads where speeding regularly occurs. police authorities have formal and informal co-ordination and cooperation mechanisms. This could be considered a National Traffic Law Enforcement Plan. conferences for TLE personnel and other activities for the benefit of all 25 police forces in the UK.limited topical enforcement and media campaigns). There are no hard data on how different TLE plans are (or their actual implementation) between districts in the same country or region. causal observations and testimonials suggest that there are actual differences in the way TLE is practiced in police districts (local communities or other geographical jurisdictions) that otherwise appear to be similar in their transport and traffic attributes. It maintains a National Policing Improvement Agency. and faced a decrease in manpower resources dedicated to traffic policing. what they believe. In recent years all Cantons increased drink. given the many practical constraints they have. Also in Switzerland. also motorways are specifically targeted. but many police districts make their own plans as well. Thus the local districts apply the general principles and guidelines to their territory and identify the safety issues specific to their drivers and roads. roadway and traffic characteristics in their territory. Similar mechanisms work in Denmark.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 Association of Chief Police Officers. produced the NRSP. evaluation studies. However. and participates in government advisory bodies such as PACTS (Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety). including traffic policing. on the priorities in the NRSP. in all countries. Danish district chiefs planning of speed enforcement operations are not based on an inventory of specific stretches of roads. in all countries. a selection of stretches is made.driving enforcement (helped by a new Federal random breath testing legislation) and automated speed enforcement. irrespective of the organizational structure of government or Traffic Police forces. However. increased the number and frequency of traffic controls. The Canton Chiefs of Police established a working group that deals with Traffic Policing and Road Safety issues. with participants from many stakeholders. in part. Police districts are invited to participate in these operations (usually time. However. by a National Plan. but primarily by “local wisdom” that “took in account” the suggestions or guidelines of a National or police HQ policy or plan. the details of local Traffic Policing were not determined at the Top. training materials. the actual mix of enforcement methods and daily tactical deployment of traffic police personnel and equipment remains at the discretion of each district (here used generically to refer to all types of local police entities).

A comparison of the countries with criminal traffic law with those having primarily an administrative system. may results only in fines and various restrictions but not in loss of freedom.5 The legal status of traffic law in a country – criminal or administrative Legal systems of Traffic Law are complex entities. driving licenses. TLE officials did find legal / practical solutions to handle enforcement practices they really wanted to adopt. Without going into moral arguments or into purely legal considerations. other agencies. Thus. It does not involve litigation and prosecution. It should be pointed out that Traffic Police often does not have responsibility or control over all aspects in the enforcement chain. An equal number of countries handle most traffic violations in an administrative legal system that is different from the criminal court system. Police involved in traffic policing usually work according to plans. plan their activities or if they have objectives.driving. such as courts. Estonia has a criminal traffic law system. and how. tracing non-payment of fines. Some countries maintain a Criminal Traffic Law system regarding violations of the traffic laws. recently passed a law that enables Traffic Police to require mandatory breath test of any driver even if not suspected on drink. The Netherlands has an administrative system and is among the best performing countries in road safety. This is a simple matter in an administrative legal system. vehicle registrations. Ireland with a criminal law system that is purported to disallow Random Breath Testing. it appears that within each primary legal system. 3. targets and performance indicators. Most are mixed. even if drink. civil.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 or de-centralized systems. in criminal traffic law systems there are exceptions that are considered administrative infractions and handled completely outside of the criminal system. which is adapted to its structure of government.legislation. Hungary has an administrative one and both have a long way to improve their safety situation. social and legal institutions. Another example concerns vehicle owner responsibility for an automatically detected and recorded speed (or other) violations.4. In practice. Irish Traffic police administer many breath tests as part of so called secondary enforcement. For example. its efficiency and ultimate effectiveness. courts – all of which are central to the sanctioning process. but faced with a serious drinkdriving problem. 21/08/2008 43 Final . Parking violations or various technical violations are sometimes like that. different evidential rules. there are no purely criminal traffic law systems or purely administrative ones. but so is the United Kingdom with a criminal traffic law system.every driver stopped for any other violation or checking is also required to take a breath test. has simpler procedures. injury accidents or serious traffic violations (as specified in the code) are considered a matter for criminal law. but perhaps more so for the de-centralized type of police organizations within a country. suggests that the nature of the legal system is not a determining factor in the level of road safety in the country. it is less clear if. Conversely.driving is not a target of explicit primary enforcement (such as in planned random breath tests). and each EU country has its own unique system. point system administration. In an otherwise administrative system of traffic law.

w Generic description of TLE action plans in the three focus areas of speed control. the outcomes of the targeted enforcement (speed. Finland. is more important than making a criminal investigation to identify who the speeding driver was and “bring her to justice”.state drivers. w Data about the actual implementation of the plans. This way the automatic enforcement system can mail the vehicle’s owner a citation and a fine payment form. Therefore they came up with a legal solution that retains the criminal status of the offence. demerit. as a preventive measure.driving checking.checking. names the driver of the vehicle and the driver confirms it. which the majority of owners will pay rather than go to court. when relevant) of the structure of the enforcement chain and in subsequent reports of changes in the chain (such as new legislation. times and duration of the checks.point administration etc. The information can be classified into three major categories: w Description (quantitative. traffic violations do not usually pose a big problem because of the “invention”of fixed fines. admits to the crime. Court summons in other. and belt use) in terms of check results. minor. In Denmark and Norway this is not possible. gives a long list of rather detailed information elements about TLE in a country. but does not require the police to look for the driver.6 Availability of data required by EC and Enforcement Coordination Point The Annex of the EC Recommendation on Enforcement.up systems of police. which each member state is being asked to report to the commission and share some of it with other countries. TLE officials decided that running massive automatic speed enforcement.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 where there is no crime to be attached to the driver of the car speeding. courts. including deployment data. drink. The plans include deployment information such as number (and length?) of road sections destined to be speed checked and the frequency. in the United Kingdom and many other countries with criminal systems.4. However. drinkdriving and seat belt usage. 21/08/2008 44 Final . this puts a high burden on police (or recently on other agencies) and hinders wide application of completely automated speed enforcement. the ways the public was informed about the ongoing enforcement activities. France adopted owner responsibility by shifting speeding offences on motorways with automatic detection systems to the administrative traffic law sector. by default. The owner is required to pay the fine and that is it. since speeding is a criminal offence and driver needs to be identified and summoned to court. The vehicle owner is made legally responsible for the violation unless he applies to the prosecutor. number of citations. When drivers pay a fine they. 3. on the other hand has started the process of legislation to allow owner responsibility within the criminal system. as in the United Kingdom. new detection tools). the involvement of out-of. Recently. how were the citations processed through the follow.

conditional dependencies in how violations are treated and processed and much more. and less dependent on administrative data about TLE operations. of speeding. drink–driving enforcement (if based on RBT) or seat belt campaigns. what to do about federal states. sometimes also by type. Regarding TLE plans. Accident data are available in all countries. but based on the experience of this and previous projects it is not a simple task to define what is relevant to report because the “enforcement chains”are very complex and are not uniform across countries. may reside with other government agencies. Another issue is who in a country will take on the very sizable administrative burden required to collect and organize the information requested in the Recommendation Annex. if available.driving rates could be estimated. Some countries can supply data on total number of violations recorded by police. It is hard to tell what is a useful level of detail. Data about actual implementation of traffic policing. In WP2 and WP4 of the present project many of the data elements mentioned in the Annex can be mapped into Enforcement Performance Indicators and Safety Performance Indicators. regarding speeding. but not much about the processing and follow up of the citations through the administrative and criminal processes. data about compliance in the driver population (such as true prevalence. 21/08/2008 45 Final . based on data that can be collected by an observatory. is scattered in hundred of locations and is not very accessible. At present. It would seem that a police agency would have the better access to such data. on various roads and various conditions. autonomous regions. even if existing. However.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 The first category of information about the enforcement chain should be available to all countries. perhaps smaller number of traffic behavior indicators are needed. Countries with traffic data Observatories can provide some behavioral indicators. could provide information about planned traffic policing on the main roads. especially the information about police operations. drink-driving or non-use of belts) are not universally collected and if they are it is usually not by police. Where RBTs are carried out. especially not in urban areas. mainly general principles that do not distinguish one period from another. rates of safety-belt use. and certainly not up to the detail listed in the Recommendation Annex. data about the processing of violations and sanctions through the legal and administrative system. Similarly. there are only limited data that can presently be supplied by TLE agencies in all countries. drink. Some countries with a central National Traffic Police dedicated to inter-urban roads. are especially scarce. The enforcement plans that are available are very generic. such as speed distributions on some roads. Also in that work it was found that at the present there are no data available to represent many of the indicators. and accident data. violation records. no country can provide reliable national data on actual deployment of police enforcement. In WP4 it is also suggested that for the purpose of monitoring TLE impact on behavior and evaluating Safety. Information about planned traffic operations in urban areas.

the specific terms of bilateral cross border TLE agreements vary among countries and they are limited to reciprocal tracing of violators and collection of traffic fines. run by police officers. and until recently all communication and negotiation about cross border violations was manual on a case by case basis. However. No country allows another access to its registries. Germany. especially between countries sharing borders. there are many bi-lateral and multi. 21/08/2008 46 Final . by passing the violation file electronically to the foreign administration.7 Designated “enforcement Coordination Point” (CP) According to the received responses.lateral agreements. Luxemburg. Switzerland and Italy. More information about current situation and future prospects regarding cross. Automatic speed enforcement system allows the prosecution of violators from foreign countries. gendarmes and customs officers linked to Belgium. France has cross-border coordination points called “CCPD” (centres de coordination police douanes).border traffic law enforcement is reported in Report D3 (approaches and implications of new technologies for European cross-border traffic enforcement) of WP3 of the PEPPER project. Now there are also exchanges of electronic data sets of cross border cases. no country has a single designated office in charge of enforcement activities communication Regarding exchange of information among EU countries about cross border traffic violations. For example.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 3. With some of these countries France has bilateral agreements to collect fines from violators from another country.4.

incl. in cases where an individual has a persistent drink problem. DPS have been introduced in more and more Member States. Drink-driving Restraint use 47 Final . alongside or instead of a sanction. drink-driving and restraint use. but in various designs. 4. minor Ministry. 2006 TRÁFICO) Speeding Drink-driving Restraint use Italy Yes 21/08/2008 The three focus offences included Ministry of Transport: All licenses are gathered in that Speeding. e.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 4 FOLLOW-UP OF OFFENCES: DEMERIT POINT SYSTEMS AND REHABILITATION PROGRAMS In this section an overview of Member States having a Demerit Point System is presented with specific focus on the inclusion of the three offences: Speeding.Police Speeding Drink-driving Restraint use Cyprus Yes Police Speeding Restraint use Greece Yes Police: only for mopeds Ministry of Transportation: for the rest of vehicle categories Speeding Drink-driving Restraint use Spain Yes – Introduced Ministry of Interior (DIRECCIÓN GENERAL DE on July.1 gives an overview of the application of DPS in the countries. Further. The application of Demerit Point Systems in the countries. and also the register of the lost points is speeding violations there. Table 4.1 Demerit Point Systems (DPS) During the last years.g. Country Demerit Point System Organization keeping the Demerit Point System Latvia Yes Road Traffic Safety Directorate (RTSD) Speeding Drink-driving Restraint use Lithuania Yes Ministry of public order – Police Speeding Slovakia No Czech Republic Yes Municipalities with the extended authority of state government – municipality where offender’ s driving license is registered Speeding Drink-driving Restraint use Poland Yes Ministry of Public Order – Police Speeding Drink-driving Restraint use Hungary Yes Ministry of Public Order . information is given regarding rehabilitation schemes or programs within the three areas as the EC recommendations calls attention to the fact that in some cases remedial measures can be appropriate.1. Table 4.

The system is expected to fully operate in a computerized way in June 2007. In Sweden this at least applies to drink driving. However.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Country Demerit Point System Dissemination Level: PU Organization keeping the Demerit Point System Contract No: 019744 The three focus offences included Netherlands Not in general – Only for young drivers Ministry of Justice For young drivers: Speeding Drink-driving Restraint use Austria Yes Ministry of Transport Drink-driving. Hungary. In Greece DPS has been established in the early 80’s. but due to lack of resources the system has been under-operating. Belgium. Regarding restraint use no recidivism is taken into account. A drink-driving offence is always recorded in the registers. Denmark and Austria do not include restraint use. in Austria DPS includes non restraint use for children.The National Commissioners Office Speeding Drink-driving Sweden No Switzerland No Latvia. Greece. The problem of recidivism has been recognized as one of the attention points for future TLE. theoretically. repeat offenders will not be recognized as long as they have not been caught and fined in the same district. In the countries with no DPS (Slovakia. 21/08/2008 48 Final . In Belgium. but in the Netherlands the system accounts only for young drivers. Poland. However. Recently it has been decided to outsource the operation. Czech Republic. previous offences have an influence on the outcome of the new offence. by 21 km/h or more on rural roads. A speed offence is recorded if the speed limit has been exceeded by 16 km/h or more on urban roads. Except for Austria speeding offences are included in all the countries with DPS. in practice. Sweden and Switzerland) previous offences are considered in relation to actual offences regarding the three types of violations. In Switzerland previous offences are taken in account if they have been entered in the register of convictions or the register of administrative measures. by 26 km/h or more on Motorways. Italy. while lack of restraint use is not recorded in a register. while United Kingdom. Restraint use only for children UK Yes Other Speeding Drink-driving Ireland Yes Ministry of Transport Speeding Seat belt use Belgium No Denmark Yes Ministry of Public Order .Police . Cyprus and Ireland do not include drink-driving. Spain and the Netherlands include all 3 offences.

The programs/courses can be voluntary or obligatory.reduction in penalty points Latvia Hungary Cyprus Yes Lectures Greece No No No Spain Yes Yes Yes Possibility to attend informative courses.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 4. Table 4. Italy Netherlands Yes Austria No Yes No Driver improvement for offences 1.2 Rehabilitation programs The concept “rehabilitation schemes/programs”has been defined very broadly by the countries responding to the questionnaire.2 ‰ or higher. and the quality of the effects is unknown. without need to demonstrate any improvement. but it is doubtful whether they can be perceived as rehabilitation. but they seem most often just to be traffic lessons or improvement courses. Some have reported lectures or training programs/driver improvement courses. Table 4.2. Traffic psychological assessment for offences 1. 21/08/2008 49 Final .2 presents an overview of the programs as they are stated by the countries. Overview of rehabilitation schemes/programs in the participating countries Country Speeding Drink-driving Restraint use Description Lithuania No Yes Yes Slovakia No No No Czech Republic No No No If license is suspended drivers just go to driving school to pass the exam again Poland Yes Yes Yes Training. This depends to a great degree on the content.6 0/00 or higher UK Yes Yes Yes Driver improvement and speed awareness courses Ireland No No No Belgium Yes Yes No Improvement courses Denmark No Yes No Rehabilitation programs Sweden No Yes No A collaborative project in Stockholm Switzerland Yes Yes No Traffic lessons 11 of the countries report to have programs of one kind or another. which is not always clear.

Drink-driving is treated more as a potential ‘alcohol/alcoholism’problem. A driver can take the training once every six months. Thus. when that would take effect. such as more therapeutic interventions. they must pay for the training though. It is a collaborative project involving Swedish Road Administration. however. offenders with an alcohol problem can be referred to the regular healthcare. Repeat offenders can attend a course and be “approved”by their doctor. 21/08/2008 50 Final . This does not apply to novice drivers though (their limit is 20 penalty points). In Cyprus lectures can be given to drivers that have collected 7 demerit points. In Denmark all drivers stopped with a BAC > 0. There is no selection based on psychological or educational principles. New regulations on driver training and exams plan to replace the lectures with re-education classes. the Police Authority and the Swedish Prison and Probation Service. but will become compulsory with new legislation. Driver improvement courses can be proposed to all offenders. on the assumption that they enter into alcoholic treatment. If a registered offence is brought to court. It consists of about 6 six hours and is increasingly often criticized for its ineffectiveness. the system does not take into account drivers with problems that cannot be helped within such courses. not every offender has the same possibility to benefit from these courses. The driver pays to attend and can get a reduction on any period of suspension.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 United Kingdom has both ‘driver improvement’and ‘speed awareness’courses. In Czech Republic drivers. In Poland all drivers can take training. can obtain the license again if fulfilling all legal requirements equal to all driver license applicants. In this case 2 points maybe erased. Apart from that drink-drivers may –as an alternative to an unconditional sentence –be given a suspended sentence. license withdrawal). jail sentence. It is a voluntary scheme today.5 g/l must participate in a course of 4 x 2 ½ hours at their own expense (270 Euro). This can also be on a mandatory basis by a judge as a probation condition. Because referral depends on judges. at this moment traffic law in Belgium has no concern with rehabilitation programs. legal and social effects of accidents and psychological aspects of driver behavior. In particular. so in practice they can reduce the number of their penalty points by 12 in a year. In general. More strict definitions of rehabilitation programs. If this is accepted the offender is followed by a probation officer during a period between one and five years. It is difficult to say. the prosecutor/judge can propose these courses to the offender in order to minimize the other sentences (fine. There are no special rehabilitation schemes. whose driving license is suspended. which will reduce the number of penalty points by 6. are not implemented in driver improvement courses for two reasons. In Sweden the program SMADIT (Joint Action against Alcohol and Drugs in Traffic is run in Stockholm County. The training is a lecture discussing the causes of road accidents. In Belgium driver improvement courses exist in the legal framework of “alternative punishments”.

i.1 Traffic Law Enforcement procedures after speeding This section concerns speed limits. It should be noted that this publication use another classification of road categories.1. 5. proportionate and dissuasive w The sanctions should be more severe in the case of repeated serious violations committed by the same offender w The sanctions should include the possibility of suspension or withdrawal of the driving license and of immobilization of the vehicle for serious violations Finally information about the existence of data collection within each area will be illuminated. It should be mentioned that there is a great variation in sanctions in the participating countries as well as there is a great variation in the degree of details in the information reported.1 Speed Limits With respect to planning of speed enforcement EC recommends that the Member States identify roads. However. 21/08/2008 51 Final . manual as well as automatic enforcement.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 5 TLE PROCEDURE FOR THE THREE SELECTED TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATIONS In this section focus will be on the TLE procedure after a violation has taken place within each of the three focus areas: Speed. According to the information collected speed enforcement is carried out on all road categories in all the 18 countries.e. procedures after speeding violations and data collection in the countries. Below the speed limits (km/h) for passenger cars are examined for the 18 countries for which data have been collected.5 tons are presented. 5. although some information is missing from a Member State it does not necessarily mean that the topic in question does not exist –it may be that it just has not been reported. based on data from the European Commission (2006). In annex 1 speed limits for motorcycles >125 cc and lorries > 3. The table below has been supplemented with information on speed limits from the rest of the EU countries.: w The sanctions of violations should be effective. Focus will mainly be on the follow up of violations recommended by EC. for which reason speed limits on highways/other roads are not fulfilled in these occasions. where non-compliance of the speed limit occurs regularly and where this brings about an increased risk of accidents. drink-driving and restrain use.

On motorways. A more conservative speed limit of 120 21/08/2008 52 Final . main roads) 80/60/30 50 50 50 90 50 50 80 50 50 100 100 (outside urban areas) 50 Estonia 110 50 Finland 100-120 50 France 110-130 50 130 50 - 40 Portugal 120 50 Slovenia 130 50 Rumania 120 50 Luxemburg Malta The speed limits vary between the countries. The most common speed limit on European motorways is 130 km/h. Apart from that the highest speed limit of 150 km/h is recorded in Italy on some occasions only.1.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 Table 5. Speed limits per road category Country Speed Limit (km/h) per Road Category Motorway Highway Other Urban 90 90 90 50 Lithuania 100-110 110-130 70-90 50 Slovakia 130 130 90 60 Czech Republic 130 130 90 50 Poland 130 110 90 50/60 Hungary 130 110 90 50 Cyprus 100 80 80 50 Greece 130 110 90 50 Spain 120 100 90 50 130-150 90-110 Netherlands 100 120 /100 Austria 130 100 UK 112 96 112 (dual carriage road 48 or 32 Ireland 120 100 60 50 Belgium 120 90 Denmark 130 80 Sweden 110 (100) 70 Switzerland 120 100 Bulgaria 120 Germany No limit Latvia Italy 50 (70. recorded in eleven countries. especially for motorways and highways. there is no speed limit in Germany.

a “lowest speed allowed on motorways”limit has been reported which is 65 km/h. the prevailing speed limit for heavy trucks is 80 km/h as recorded in 13 countries. 5. On highways and other roads the prevailing generic speed limit is 80 km/h and it is lowered in Poland. the most common range of speed limits is between 100 km/h and 110 km/h. The percentage of speed violation registrations by automated equipment is demonstrated for the 8 countries who responded on this topic in table 5. 5. while the lowest speed limit is recorded in Cyprus 65 km/h. An inappropriate effect of the differences in speed limits between the countries could be that drivers do not respect the speed limits in their own country.4 Percentage of speed violation registrations by automated equipment EC recommends a combination of automated and traditional speed enforcement. as this is known to be best practice. On motorways.1. where the speed limit is 40 km/h. the majority of the countries have a general speed limit of 50 km/h. and Malta. Four other countries have speed limits between 80 km/h and 90 km/h. Spain and Belgium have the higher speed limit of 90 km/h.2 below. Spain. On urban roads the speed limit is the same as that for passenger cars. while Slovakia and Czech Republic have the same speed limit of 130 km/h as on motorways. Each of these items is asked for in the EC Recommendations. For heavy trucks > 3.3 Automated speed registrations In the following several procedures regarding automated speed regulations are described for the countries. with the exception of Slovakia.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 km/h can be found on motorways in seven countries. while in Greece the speed limit has been increased by 5 km/h from 80 km/h to 85 km/h in June 2007. On urban roads.1. Italy. while the lower speed limits on motorways ranging from 90 km/h to 110 km/h are recorded in 8 countries. as they can see that other countries sometimes have higher speed limits on the same kind of roads. In Cyprus.1.5 tons. 50 km/h. the changes in speed limits when one travel across the countries may be confusing. the speed limit is in the range of 90 km/h to 80 km/h for most countries with the exception of Ireland with a speed limit of 60 km/h. where the speed limit is 60 km/h. On other road categories. On highways. the speed limit is generally lower than that for passenger cars by 10 km/h to 50 km/h. 5.2 Motorcycles and heavy trucks The big motorcycles (engine > 125cc) have the same speed limits as the passenger cars in the countries for which data is available. Sweden and Denmark to 70 km/h. Moreover. 21/08/2008 53 Final .

The distribution of automated and manual registrations in the other 4 countries varies a lot. Manual registrations: 87 % UK Automated registrations: around 95% nationally.Reference: Cyprus Traffic Police Czech Republic The speed enforcement is carried out by various bodies (Traffic Units of Police of the CR and Municipal Police Forces) and there are no centrally registered data from Municipal Police that uses fixed cameras more often.000.e. Latvia Manual registrations: 100% Lithuania Automatic registration 20%.41% .PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 Table 5. manual registration 80% Poland Automated registrations: 13 %. In Sweden there is no automatic control on motorways. 21/08/2008 54 Final . 0.1.000 violations over 14. 57.5 Treatment of automated registrations through the TLE chain One important question that is raised by EC is whether automated and manual registrations of speeding are followed up in a similar way through the rest of the TLE chain. Percentage of speed violation registrations by automated equipment Country Manual or Automatic Speed Violation Registration Austria Automated registrations: 70%. Manual registrations: 5% Sweden Automatic registration 3%.2.3. 5.000 traffic volume i. This matter is enlightened for 8 countries in table 5. In Lithuania only 2 fixed cameras were installed on main roads. In Cyprus the use of automatic speed limit violation registrations is recently used to an increasing extent. Manual registrations: 30% Cyprus Automated registrations: In 6 months. Manual registration 97% (manual includes the old camera system (wet film camera) Latvia presents 100% manual registrations and in the Czech Republic it is mainly the Municipal Police that uses fixed cameras more often but relative data are not available centrally.

6 Procedure following the automated violation registration In the table below it is stated if the automated violation registration is followed by a manual or automated procedure in 9 countries. This means that the capacities of the existing technology to automate and speed up the following steps in the TLE chain are not exploited and the benefits of automated registration are only limited to the first part of the chain.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 Table 5. Switzerland Yes In 6 out of 8 countries: Austria. Speed violations brought by traffic police go through the courts/magistrate. Lithuania. Speed violations brought by traffic police go through the courts/magistrate.1. In Cyprus automated registrations of speed driving violations are not treated in the same way through the rest of the TLE chain as manual registrations. A manual process is in application today which will become automated in the near future.3. Czech Republic. Poland and Switzerland. You can appeal via a court hearing. the automated registrations of speed limit violations are treated in the same way as the manual registrations of the violation. 5. Treatment of automated and manual speed violation registrations Country Automated and manual registrations of speed driving violations followed up in the same way through the rest of the TLE chain Lithauania Yes Czech Republic Yes Poland Yes Cyprus No Greece Yes Austria Yes UK No . Greece. In the United Kingdom a more or less automated method is used with a fixed penalty letter being sent to the registered vehicle owner. 21/08/2008 55 Final . You can appeal via a court hearing.speed cameras are more or less automated with a fixed penalty letter being sent to registered keeper.

The plate number is recognized and the owner is prosecuted. In the United Kingdom a fully automated process is in application. Cyprus. But even then. Manual or automated procedure following automated registration Country Manual or automated procedure following the automated registration Lithuania Manual process only Czech Republic Manual process only Poland Manual process only Cyprus Manual process only: It will become automated in the near future. Czech Republic. no Q’ s – only O’ s). but only the ticket for payment of the fine. sanctioning partly automatically).PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 Table 5. Sweden and Switzerland have a mixed manual and automated process in application. In case of refusing to pay the fine. If the owner was not the driver he must declare who the driver was. In Switzerland the part which is more and more automated is the recognition of the number plate. a manual control is carried out.g. Austria.4. A violating car is photographed and stored in the Traffic Police files. and questioning of the violation. the violation information and date and time will be presented to the court as evidence.5 shows the legal responsibility in the follow up of a speed violation registration in 8 countries. the driver.1. Some have manual checking and manual enhancement for things like dirty plates. The part which is more and more automated is the recognition of the number plate. the picture showing the vehicle. Greece Manual process only Austria Mixed manual and automated process: Data collection manual from the radar boxes. or transferred automatically (section control. 21/08/2008 56 Final . but controlled by human. Sweden Mixed manual and automated process Switzerland Mixed manual and automated: Most of the automated violation registrations have a manual procedure. UK Fully automated: Automatic number plate recognition is used – but with certain algorithms to check integrity (e. A 10% error rate of the automated number plate recognition system has been estimated by police officers. Lithuania.7 Legal responsibility following an automated speed limit violation registration Table 5. Greece and Poland fall into this category. No photograph is send to the house of the offender. Most of the countries still use manual process only. a manual control is carried out. 5. in order to be fined and sanctioned. But even then.

Sweden The driver Switzerland The owner or the driver indicated by the owner In 6 of the countries.8 Coherence between seriousness of violations and sanctions EC recommends as a general policy that violations are followed up with effective and proportionate sanctions and not with only a warning. In Poland and Sweden the driver has the legal responsibility following the registration of a speed limit violation through automated methods. but the level of sanctions is more or less proportionate to the gravity of the offence. Moreover sanctions should be more severe in the case of repeated serious violations committed by the same offender and sanctions should include the possibility of suspension or withdrawal of the driving license and of immobilization of the vehicle for serious violations. Many drivers registered by some violation are abusing this point – estimates of police officers responsible for the enforcement data processing and analysis are about 20-30% of all speed limit violators registered by the automated systems. Police officers estimate abuse of the law to a 20-30% of all speed limit violators registered by the automated systems.1. Legal responsibility in the follow up of a speed violation registration Country Legal Responsibility following an automated speed limit violation registration. that he was not driving when the offence was registered. In the Czech Republic. If it is a company car the company would be the owner and would pass it on. It is not clear how the identity of the driver is ensured through automated methods of registration. and in the same time to reveal the identity of the driver. This may result in ineffective use of automated methods of registrations such as speed cameras.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 Table 5. 5. Poland The driver Cyprus The owner or the driver indicated by the owner Austria The owner or the driver indicated by the owner UK The owner or the driver indicated by the owner: It is the registered owner (ie name on vehicle log-book). Lithuania The owner and the driver indicated by the owner Czech Republic The owner or the driver indicated by the owner: The law enables the owner to persist. the legal responsibility for a speed limit violation registered by automated method lies with the owner of the vehicle or with the driver indicated by the owner. The ticket is sent to him/her (to pass on if you were not driver – if you don’ t name someone else you are responsible). This is the case in countries that have criminal or administrative type of sanctions for Traffic Law violations and applies both to the monetary 21/08/2008 57 Final . The type of follow-up procedures as well as the level of sanctions for speed limit violations proportional to the gravity of the offence is presented in Annex I table 2 for 16 countries. The procedures and sanctions vary between the countries.5. This may give the opportunity to owner of the vehicle to seek way to avoid punishment in case he/she is already in a risk to have his/her driving license sustained due to previous registered traffic law violations.

In Cyprus too speed limit violation is a criminal offence. In case of non-acceptance by the owner. But the offender will go to the court only if he refuses to pay the fine or if the speed limit is violated by more than 50 km/h. But if the violation is registered by Police radar or if the violator is involved in an accident he/she may be prosecuted as a dangerous driver and be sent to the court. In Denmark the procedure is mixed. The Czech Republic. the rate of the fine is not found proportionate to the risk involved at very high speeds. In the Netherlands the procedure is mixed as regards to the motorways: up to 30 km over the limit follows the administrative procedure. most of the driving offences including speed limit violation have been decriminalized in order to remove excess burden from the courts. When a violation is detected. In Greece. the case may go to court. only a fine is given. injury or death. Spain. regarding Cyprus. excess of 30 km over the limit is subject to criminal prosecution. and depending on the severity of the offence. according to the Driving Code revision recently applied (2nd of June 2007). Austria. Latvia and Lithuania report a fully administrative procedure for speed violations. In most of the countries the sanction of speed violation is mixed and the procedure can be administrative or criminal depending on the severity and the impact of the violation. the violator must come to court. Sweden has only reported administrative sanctions. different prosecution methods can follow. For speed violations between 1 and 20 km/h. If the fines are not paid. suspense of driving license or removal of the vehicle plates and immobilization of the vehicle for a period of time will be applied simultaneously to the registration of the violation. In the United Kingdom all camera recorded speed violations are treated through administrative procedure. the owner of the car receives a fine by mail. the procedure is fully administrative. Typically the countries have a fully administrative procedure unless the offence is connected with an accident. in which case the prosecution becomes criminal: Italy. For speed violations over 30 km/h or speeding over 150 km/h on motorways. Poland and Slovakia report that the procedure is mixed. Cyprus. Otherwise. In Belgium speed limit violation is always a criminal offence. depending on the type and severity of the offence.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 fines as well as to the demerit points and duration of driving license suspension or vehicle immobilization time period. 21/08/2008 58 Final . For roads with lower speed limits the treatment is similar but the ranges of the excess speed are calculated as percentages of the speed limit. If the owner accepts the fine. paying the fine is considered an extrajudicial settlement. However. Ireland.

median: 3 months (2005) The question is not applicable to countries that treat speed limit violations with administrative procedures only. Denmark.10 Follow – Up of offences The table below shows estimated mean time for a speed violation prosecution to come to Court for 8 countries with criminal procedures.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 5. Input on this question is not available from Hungary. For police prosecutions will depend on location and time of year.6. 21/08/2008 59 Final .1. If it is an appeal against a camera about the same. Belgium. Table 5. Estimated mean time for a speed violation prosecution to come to Court Country Mean time for a speed violation prosecution to come to Court Poland 2-3 months. UK 2-4 months. Lithuania and Slovakia. Greece (after the 2nd of June 2007). Cyprus 6 months. The policy is to keep the time as short as possible. Netherlands 1 month on average. Switzerland Mean: 4 months. there are relatively short time periods of 2 to 4 months for a speed violation prosecution to come to the court. Spain and Sweden. Italy. In Ireland it is 12 months. In the Netherlands the fastest mean time for a speed violation prosecution to come to the Court is 1 month from the violation time. Belgium In general 2 to 3 months Denmark 3 to 6 months. Moreover. In Denmark it is 3 to 6 months and in Cyprus 6 months which is a rather long time period. Czech Republic. 5. This is the case in Czech Republic. Italy. Latvia.9 License suspension and immobilization of the vehicle Austria. which is considered a long time period for a speed violation prosecution to come to the court. Poland and the U.K. Very varied. In Belgium. in Switzerland one will get custodial sentence in relation to large exceeding.1. Immobilization of the vehicle is not reported in any of the countries in relation to speed violations. Ireland 12 months. This does not always work. Greece. Slovakia. Spain and Switzerland reports to have the possibility of withdrawing the driving license in relation to large exceeding or recidivism.

PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 5. Only Ireland reports total lack of relevant data collection. Data collected in the countries. Court decisions.1. 21/08/2008 60 Final . changes in the rules of drink-driving and violations by foreign drivers.7. Court decisions statistics Changes in the rules on speeding Statistics on speed violations by foreign vehicles and drivers No Yes No Automatic speed enforcement equipment Violations statistics Sanction statistics Lithuania Yes Yes Yes Slovakia Yes Yes Yes No No No Czech Republic Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Poland Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Hungary Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cyprus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Greece No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Spain Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No NetherLands Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Austria Yes Yes Yes No No UK Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Ireland No No No No No No No Belgium Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Denmark Yes Sweden Yes Switzerland Yes Speed enforcement procedures No Information requested by EC Recommendations regarding speed limit violations is being collected today by the majority of the countries. Statistics on Traffic Law violations by foreign vehicles and drivers is the least covered area. Only Czech Republic and Hungary collect this kind of information. The table below shows countries collecting statistics or information of the kind required in the EC Recommendations. sanctions. Denmark. which provided information for this survey. Italy and Latvia have not provided information on this question.11 Availability of information useful for the European Commission EC recommends that the Member States provide the Commission with information concerning speeding violations. Table 5.

5 g/l 0.5 g/l Cyprus 0. In most of the countries that provided input to this question. Greece.5 g/l 0. Czech Republic. table 3.K.0 g/l Poland 0. 0. Ireland and Slovakia.2.5 g/l.2 g/l for new drivers (owning a license for less than 4 years or less than 24 years of age) and professional drivers Spain 0. Existing Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) limit in the countries Country BAC limit Latvia 0.2 g/l for new drivers Lithuania 0. see Annex I. Information on speed enforcement procedures is not collected by Austria. Sanction statistics are not collected by Austria and Ireland and automatic speed enforcement equipment information is not collected by Greece and Ireland. Austria. which definitely are important factors for the distinguished successful application of TLE chain in the Netherlands.5 g/l 0. DGT in Spain.1 Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) limits BAC limits in the Member States are not harmonized.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 Court decisions and statistics is the second least covered area in information collection.2 g/l for new drivers (owning a license for less then 5 years) 21/08/2008 61 Final .8. SFSO in Switzerland and DfT in the U. 5.5 g/l Netherlands 0. In table 5.5 g/l Greece 0.3 g/l for professional and novice drivers Italy 0.4 Slovakia 0.2 g/l Hungary 0. based on data from the European Commission (2006). Lithuania.8 the BAC limits in the 18 participating countries has been supplemented with information on BAC limits in the rest of the EU countries. Police or Traffic Police is the principal organization collecting data requested by the EC.0 g/l Czech Republic 0. Other organizations that can be mentioned are: Federal Ministry of the Interior in Austria. It is of special interest to mention the “National Public Prosecutor for Traffic”and the “Central Fine Collection Agency” in Netherlands. Table 5.2 Information of the enforcement chain in the field of drink-driving 5. Justice Department in Belgium. Ireland. Slovakia and Spain report no collection of this kind of information.

8 g/l Belgium 0. breath testing are not allowed in general. The highest BAC limits are 0.2 Enforcement There is no information from Cyprus and Italy. and Rumania.5 g/l Bulgaria 0. while Poland.2. 5.are found in Slovakia. the Czech Republic.5 g/l < 0.8 g/l Malta 0. In Greece and United Kingdom enforcement in principle should be carried out everywhere too. enforcement is done mainly on lower speed roads and during ‘drinking hours’.5 g/l Estonia 0.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Country BAC limit Austria 0. Spain.e.8 g/l. w In United Kingdom. Estonia and Sweden have 0.8 g/l Ireland 0. The lowest BAC limits . found in 4 countries.0 g/l . but in reality different circumstances are in force: w In Greece in practice more attention is given on urban roads and in times and places where people tend to drive after drinking.5 g/l Rumania 0. The Netherlands.5 g/l Finland 0. only if the driver is stopped randomly to check for other targets and the police then becomes suspicious of drinkdriving.1 g/l for new drivers and category C drivers UK 0.2 g/l France 0. Greece.0.8 g/l Portugal 0.5 g/l. 21/08/2008 62 Final .2 g/l. For most of the other countries enforcement of drink-driving is carried out on all kinds of roads. I.5 g/l Denmark 0. This means that relatively little drink-driving enforcement is done on motorways – except if the driver is initially stopped for speeding.5 g/l Luxemburg 0.0 g/l Contract No: 019744 The most common BAC limit is 0. Latvia and Austria all have lower BAC limits for new drivers.5 g/l Slovenia 0.2 g/l Switzerland 0.5 g/l Sweden 0.

because it is not based on individual driver characteristics (ETSC. Country Specified requirements for legal prosecution Systematic (targeted) RBT RBT in normal traffic enforcement Latvia Yes Yes Alcoholmeters Blood testing devices Lithuania Yes Yes Alcohol screening devices Blood testing devices Slovakia Yes Yes Alcoholmeters - Czech Republic Yes Yes Blood testing devices Poland Yes Yes Alcoholmeters Blood testing devices Hungary Yes Yes Alcohol screening devices Alcoholmeters Blood testing devices Cyprus Yes Greece Yes Yes Alcoholmeters Blood testing devices (Used in cases of involvement in fatal accidents) Spain Yes Yes Alcoholmeters Blood testing devices (The blood test is only done if the driver ask for it) Italy Yes Netherlands Yes 21/08/2008 Alcohol screening devices . because the police do not need to have a suspicion of drink-driving to be allowed to take a test. If evidential breath testing devices are allowed to be used along the roadside. than if a suspicion is needed. Overview of random breath testing and use of testing devices. Table 5.2. Estonia and Denmark the police also test for alcohol.9. In Sweden. the Netherlands. Random breath testing is providing the highest level of drink-driving checks.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 5. 2006). The table below gives an overview of random breath testing and use of testing devices in the participating countries.Alcoholmeters Blood testing devices (Only exceptionally due to medical reasons. when drivers are stopped for whatever reason. and thus random breath testing have a more preventive effective. This is still a random procedure. Random breath testing may be systematic in the sense that they focus on times and places where drinking drivers are likely to be found.) Alcohol screening devices 63 Final . This means that the risk of being caught in drink-driving is much bigger in countries where random breath testing is allowed.3 Random and evidential breath testing methods and requirements for legal prosecution The Commission states that best practices with respect to drink-driving are the application of random breath testing with alcohol screening devices and the use of evidential breath test devices. the enforcement of drink-driving is even more preventive and effective.

Cyprus. police can stop drivers randomly as part of the normal traffic enforcement to check the vehicle and then ask everyone for breath-test (Digital readout roadside breath testing equipment can now be used as evidence. Hungary. Thus the recommendations from EC are followed to a high degree in the countries as regards random breath testing.) Thus.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 Austria Yes Yes Alcoholmeters Comments: Alternative screening devices only for indication UK No Yes Alcohol screening devices Alcoholmeters Blood testing devices Ireland No Yes Alcohol screening devices Alcoholmeters Blood testing devices Belgium Yes Yes Alcohol screening devices Alcoholmeters Blood testing devices Denmark Yes Yes Alcoholmeters Blood testing devices Sweden Yes Yes Alcohol screening devices Alcoholmeters Blood testing devices Switzerland Yes Yes Alcoholmeters Blood testing devices Almost all the countries carry out random breath testing methods in systematic surveillances of drink-driving as well as a part of the normal traffic enforcement. the Netherlands. Ireland.4 Coherence between seriousness of violation and sanctions As with speed. Belgium. In Ireland a limited form of random breath testing was introduced in August 2006. Alcohol screening devices are applied in 8 out of the 18 countries: Lithuania. police officers can test drivers without having to form an opinion about whether an intoxicant has been consumed. Where a Police Inspector or a higher ranked person signs an authorization for particular locations and at specific times. while evidential breath testing appears not to have been admitted to a high degree yet. Exceptions are United Kingdom and Ireland.2. Regarding alcohol measuring method and equipment necessary to provide evidence for legal prosecution the methods most often used are alcoholmeters and blood testing devices. 21/08/2008 64 Final . breath tests are practiced as a so called secondary enforcement. EC recommends as a general policy that drink-driving violations are followed up with effective and proportionate sanctions and not with only a warning. United Kingdom and Sweden. In United Kingdom. 5. where systematic breath testing is not allowed.

no rules are directly related to young drivers. In almost all the countries the driving license can be suspended for drink-driving for a shorter or longer period depending of the seriousness of the offence. table 1. specific rules regarding young offenders are set out in the Swedish act on special provisions. growing to criminal sanctions with increased fines. which describe sanctions for offences in the traffic law. starting often with administrative fines and in some cases demerit points and. Drivers are penalized under the criminal law. possible immobilization of vehicle. However. the sanction of drink-driving over the limit is a fine and a loss of license for year (high limit and high penalty). In Belgium. In United Kingdom. Poland states that the traffic law is administrative. Specifically the sanctions in Poland are very severe: If BAC > 0.8 g/l). where the BAC limit is high (0. which makes it difficult to evaluate which countries have the lowest and highest sanctions as a whole. fines are often combined with license suspension and imprisonment of different character. Cyprus. Austria has specific rules for foreign beginner drivers and vehicle category C as well. suspension of driving license. in United Kingdom.2 sanctions can be penalty points. Ireland and Sweden. Administrative and criminal sanctions and the seriousness of the sanctions are presented in Annex II. Thus. Poland and Sweden the sanctions are a combination of fines and license suspension even though the BAC limits are low. In the Netherlands all sanctions are administrative. In Sweden. Spain. Switzerland and DK sanctions are more severe in the case of repeated serious violations committed by the same offender. because it does not contain sanctions. Italy and Latvia . In all cases the sanctions reflect the seriousness of the offend. However. Czech Republic. detention. Belgium. suspension of license and in some countries even immobilization of vehicle and some kind of imprisonment. In most of the countries the sanctions for drink-driving are combined administrative and criminal.Austria. 21/08/2008 65 Final . in some way one can say it is mixed.have specific rules for new drivers.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 Moreover sanctions should be more severe in the case of repeated serious violations committed by the same offender and sanctions should include the possibility of suspension or withdrawal of the driving license and of immobilization of the vehicle for serious violations. There are great variations in the sanctions for drink-driving offences in the different countries. Finally. Some countries . with more serious offences. drink-driving is followed by criminal procedure only. In Slovakia. Italy.

the seriousness of the violation as well as the strain of the Court. The length of the period may depend on e.g. The mean time for a violation prosecution to come to Court is presented in the table below for 6 of the countries. sanctions. Mean time for a drink drive violation to come to Court Country Mean time for a violation prosecution to come to Court Poland 3 . Table 5.10.5 months Cyprus next day or as soon as possible UK 1-2 months Ireland 6 months Denmark 3-4 months Switzerland 4 months If the case has to go to court e.6 Availability of information useful for the European Commission EC recommends that the Member States provide the Commission with information concerning drink-driving violations. changes in the rules of drink-driving and violations by foreign drivers.2. The table below shows countries collecting statistics or information of the kind required in the EC Recommendations.g. because the driver caused a serious accident with persons injured or killed the procedure varies mostly between 1 – 6 months. 5.2. 21/08/2008 66 Final .PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 5.5 Follow-up of offences Another question of interest for the Commission is how long it takes for the entire procedure including execution of sanction. Court decisions.

this is the least covered area for drink-driving. Regarding violations committed by foreign vehicles or drivers. Most of the countries collect data concerning random breath testing and changes in the rules of drink-driving. In general.court decision statistics are also the second least covered area in information collection. Data collected in the countries. The organizations responsible for the data collection are presented in Annex II. In Ireland no such information is collected at all. while violation and sanction statistics are mostly collected either by the police or within another field of a Ministry. as well as it was for speeding. data concerning random and evidential breath testing are collected by the police. Only about half of the countries have reported on this matter and from these countries only 3: Czech Republic. Random and evidential breath testing Violation statistics Sanction Statistics Court decision Statistics Changes in the rules on drinkdriving Statistics on drinkdriving violations by foreign vehicles and Drivers Lithuania Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Slovakia No Yes Yes No No Czech Republic Yes Yes Yes Yes Poland Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Hungary Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cyprus Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Greece Yes Yes Yes No Yes Spain Yes Yes Yes Netherlands No Austria Yes UK Other information No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Ireland No No No No No No Belgium Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Denmark Yes Yes Yes Sweden Yes Yes Yes Yes Switzerland Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No 16 of the 18 countries report on this matter. table 3. sanction statistics are taken care of by the public prosecutor. In the same way – as regarding speed . 21/08/2008 67 Final .PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 Table 5.11. In the Netherlands. Hungary and the Netherlands collect data. as well as they make statistics concerning violations and sanctions in the drinkdriving area.

there could be a doctor’ s written recommendation not to use a seat belt Both the driver and the passenger Hungary Yes Cyprus Yes Yes.12. driver when reversing. sanctions and data collection regarding seat belt use is presented for the participating countries. in very near future new legislation will be introduced and restraint use will be obligatory for all persons Yes -police. violation. In United Kingdom. postmen. 5. EMS vehicles. driver when turning or reversing Both the driver and the passenger Czech Republic Yes Yes -Police. sanction and Court statistics and rule changes. and some times it is the same organization taking care of violation. Table 5. army.1 Obligatory restraint use The table below shows the existing rules and legal responsibilities regarding non use of restraints. Rules and legal responsibilities regarding non use of restraints. sanctions and court decision statistics are published annually. Country Restraint use obligatory for all persons Latvia Yes - Both the driver and the passenger Lithuania Yes Yes – handicapped persons Both the driver and the passenger Slovakia Not for children. while Belgium reports that in general the level of detail and the availability of information for public use are very uncertain. army. for medical reasons Both the driver and the passenger (or the escort in case of young passengers) 21/08/2008 Exceptions 68 Responsibility for non use of restraints Final . persons with medical certificate Both driver and passenger Poland Yes Yes . taxis.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 Regarding Court decision statistics as well as changes in rules they are generally collected by Ministry’s or the police. 5.3 Enforcement of restraint use Restraint use is of great importance for traffic safety. teachers in driving schools. In the following the rules. taxi drivers. teachers in driving schools.3.

meaning that a driver is issued a ticket. Garda of Defense Force (on duty) Both the driver and the passenger Belgium Yes Yes-taxi. taxi. Denmark Yes Yes . Children restraint seats has to be approved also.only in urban areas: Taxi drivers. when medical reason Both the driver and the passenger Switzerland Yes Yes. taxi drivers Both the driver and the passenger UK Yes Yes –disabled /pregnant persons Both the driver and the passenger Ireland Yes Yes-driving instructors and tester. driving instructors.5 m tall Spain Yes Yes .PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 Country Restraint use obligatory for all persons Greece Yes The passenger (or the escort in Yes – ”public use”vehicle case of young passengers) drivers. medical reasons . pregnant women Both driver and passenger Netherlands Yes. persons below 1. some handicapped drivers and certain occupations) are exempted from the rules Both the driver and the passenger Sweden Yes Yes. Not compulsory when the vehicle is not moving. If medical evidence is provided. If a person is too bulky. patrol cars. handicap transport vehicles The passenger (or the escort in case of young passengers) 21/08/2008 Exceptions Responsibility for non use of restraints Both driver and passenger are punishable by law. emergency vehicles. freight distributors loading frequently. if not . when it is backing. emergency vehicles. but a ticket is also issued to a passenger not wearing his/her seat belt 69 Final .emergency vehicles. medical reasons Both driver and passenger Unless the passenger is younger than 16 years. then the driver is responsible. medical cases. when there is only slight risk.g. when riding within a parking place/gas station or similar. drivers with frequently stops and low speed. drivers of vehicles with frequent stops. medical reasons. it is punishable by law as well Austria Yes Yes – rural areas with no public traffic. emergency vehicles. security service staffs.some groups (e. pregnant women. and disabled people with appropriate medical certificate Both driver and passenger – The responsible is always who does not use it Italy Yes Yes.

5.Usually in coordination with Pan European programs. plus 3 demerit points. Cyprus and Greece mention the responsibility for child passengers not wearing seat belts. Sanctions and following up of non-restraint use Country Consistent and repeated enforcement Criminal prosecution or adm. Table 5. and in these countries – as presumably in all the EU countries – the responsibility lies on the driver or the escort of the young passenger. Sanctions Fully Administrative Fine 4 Euro and for driver additional 1 penalty point Fully Administrative Fine up to 2000 SK (59 EUR) Fully Administrative 2 demerit points. Table 5. nd Greece 21/08/2008 Yes .2 Sanctions Because of the serious consequences of non restraint use EC recommends that violation are followed up with effective.13 shows the sanctions and following up of non-restraint use.* € 350 New fine after the 2 of June 2007. These are typically drivers of vehicles with specific functions. penalty 65 € on spot. Children under 12 years of age have to be restrained by an approved restraint system suitable for the child's height and weight Most of the countries report exceptions from the obligatory restraint use. 70 Final . from the 2nd of June 2007 seat belt use has become compulsory for every vehicle that is equipped with safety zones including trucks. emergency vehicles or drivers medical reasons. Fully Administrative 100 PLN (=25€).PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 EU legislation (Directive 91/671/EEC) requires that all occupants of passenger cars and light vans use seat belts. proportionate and dissuasive sanctions and not with only warnings. penalty 50-80 €. but most of the exceptions will be removed the 1 st of May 2008.13. in accordance with respective Pan European and TISPOL Campaigns. In Greece. The Czech Republic reports some specific exceptions from the rules for the families with more children. plus 10 days suspension of driving license. In all the countries the responsibility for non restraint use lies on the driver and the passengers. Procedure Lithuania No Fully Administrative Latvia Slovakia Yes Czech Republic Poland Yes Hungary Cyprus Yes. Only Belgium.3. bus drivers. demerit points Fully administrative Fines + 1 penalty point Mixed 50 CYP or court plus 2 demerit points Mixed € 156 . 3 different months are planned for consistent enforcement of restraint use in 2007. such as taxi’s.

Penalty for not having secured children: Withdrawal of driving license for 3 months. Same offence repeated 3 times in the last year: Driving license can be suspended for 8 days to 5 years Denmark Yes . penalty points for young drivers Austria Yes . Mixed .in case of a collision where a child is injured due to insufficient securing Administrative: 21-72 Euro.000 EUR fine. In Belgium it is only criminal. In case of young passenger without children restraint system..PEPPER Deliverable 6 Country Spain Dissemination Level: PU Consistent and repeated enforcement Yes Italy Contract No: 019744 Criminal prosecution or adm.10.. 2 points otherwise. Greece.for driver) Switzerlan d No Only half of the 18 countries reports having consistent and repeated enforcement of restraint use. 21/08/2008 71 Final .Every control of a car includes the control of the restraint use. Penalty points Administrative Altering or hampering its normal working: 34-82 Euro. UK Yes . Ireland and Sweden it is mixed administrative and criminal. 289 EURO for children. In Denmark and Austria drivers are also checked for restraint use in ordinary controls or by suspicion of other offences. No use of seat belt:68-275 Euro. Loss of 3 points in driving license. Procedure Sanctions Administrative 150 €.It is fully enforced all the time Fully Administrative- 34-721 Euro. In most cases the follow-up procedure of restraint use violation is fully administrative. If not paid: €60 55-1375€ if fine isn’ t paid and case comes to court. 2 otherwise Ireland No Belgium No Criminal First fine: € 50. while in Cyprus.Every control of a car includes the control of the restraint use. 1-2 weeks 2-3 times in a year Mixed From 1. loss of 5 points in the driving license Netherland s Yes Administrative Fines. Responsible adults face a 5. Suspension of the license in repeated offences (2003) Mixed Criminal: Using a vehicle without seat belts fitted: 4 points if taken to court.for each person. Fully Administrative Fine: € 67. €40. Driving without seat belt (front/back UNDER 17 YEARS ages) 4 points if taken to court. Discount of 30% of fine if the payment is done on the 30 days following the notification. For children <15 years : €268 Fully Administrative Administrative: €40. Non restraint use for passengers below 15 years is sanctioned with penalty points Sweden No.2006: €160 . Austria.

Austria. and in 8 countries also a loss of demerit points (See also section 4). it is expected that restraint use violation will be decriminalized after the 2nd June 2007. United Kingdom. In Austria. The mildest sanctions seem to be in Slovakia. Belgium and United Kingdom there is also a possibility of suspension of driving license for a shorter or longer period.14.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 In Greece the driver may choose to pay half the fine within 10 days and avoid the criminal prosecution.3. the sanction for non restraint use varies a lot in the countries. Data collection in each country Extent of enforcement actions Violation statistics Sanction statistics Court decision statistics Changes in rules of restraint use Statistics on Traffic Law violations by foreign vehicles and drivers Lithuania Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Slovakia Yes Yes Yes No No Czech Republic Yes Yes Yes No court decisions Yes Poland Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Hungary Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cyprus Greece Yes Yes Yes No Yes Spain Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Netherlands Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Austria No Yes No No Yes Probably not Not as separate type UK Ireland 21/08/2008 No No No No 72 No Final . where the demerit point system only counts in certain occasions. Moreover. In Greece. Denmark and Sweden fines are extra high when driving with children not wearing seat belts. and the Netherlands and Denmark. but in most cases fines are combined with at least penalty points. The information should be sent to the Commission and exchanged between the Member States. Table 5. Thus.3 Availability of information useful for the European Commission To identify how effectively the EC recommendations are being implemented each Member State should collect information in these matters. In the table below is presented the different kinds of data collection in each country. The sanctions for not wearing a seat belt are always a fine. 5. Switzerland and Sweden with fine as the only sanction.

This is the case for data collection regarding speeding and drink-driving too. In the lower end of data collection appears Court decisions . 11 collect data of intensive enforcement actions. In general. The responsible organizations for data collection regarding seat belt use are presented in Annex III table 1. while other kinds of data collection vary more between the police and other authorities as responsible organizations. Cyprus.these are only collected for statistics in 4 countries –Poland. data regarding intensive enforcement actions on restraint use are collected by the police. 21/08/2008 73 Final . Violation and sanction statistics are collected by 13 respectively 10 of the countries. the Netherlands and Belgium. Changes in rules of restraint use are being collected by 9 countries.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 Extent of enforcement actions Violation statistics Sanction statistics Court decision statistics Changes in rules of restraint use Statistics on Traffic Law violations by foreign vehicles and drivers Belgium Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Denmark Yes Yes No No Sweden Yes Yes Yes Switzerland No No No Yes No Not applicable Ireland has no data collection regarding restraint use. The poorest case regards statistics on traffic law violations by foreign vehicles and drivers –in this case only Czech Republic reports data collection. Of the remaining countries.

whether it is possible to apply the complete TLE chain to vehicles or drivers registered in foreign Member States. sanctioning. Table 6. Problems with collecting fines exists Only collecting fines. No. The violations should be reported to the authorities in the Member State in which the vehicle is registered. Depends on reciprocal agreements with other countries.1. Case will only go to Court if it is a very severe violation Cases go to Court immediately. but there are some limited sanctions. Tickets may be issued but fines may never be collected. No 74 No No Final .1 shows. Ireland No 21/08/2008 No – probably not in many cases. Tickets may be issued but fines may never be collected. More specifically it refers to the notification to the violator. Table 6. but there are some limited sanctions Czech Republic Only collecting fines. but there are some limited sanctions No. It is possible to collect fines. Tickets may be issued but fines may never be collected. Thus. Identifying who to post fine to would be a problem. prosecution. Spain No-if the driver is notified by the police. It is not possible to apply the enforcement chain Italy Unknown. fine collection and rehabilitation that follow the registration of the violation. it depends on the administration Austria There is a bilateral agreement with Germany No No UK No.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 6 CROSS BORDER ENFORCEMENT The EC recommend effective sanctioning in relation to serious and/or repeated violations committed by foreign drivers. he has to make a money deposit and may be prohibited to drive in Spain during 1 – 3 months It is only possible to apply the Law until the fine collection or appeals: drivers have to make the money deposit. Cross border enforcement on speeding. No Greece No. No. Only collecting fines. adjudication. Problems with collecting fines exist. drink-driving and non restraint use Country Speed Drink-driving Restraint use Lithuania No No No Slovakia No. No. there should be a mechanism for cross border enforcement. Problems with collecting fines exists Poland Yes Yes Yes Cyprus In most cases nothing will happen.for speed cameras the registration number is the start.

PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 Country Speed Drink-driving Restraint use Belgium Yes . In Slovakia violators that refuse to pay the fine is registered in a database on boarder crossings and they are not allowed to enter the country again. and a foreign car can be impounded until matters have been settled.of the violators . In the new legislation there is as well possibility to get cautions from foreign drivers. No No Only Belgium and Poland state that the complete TLE chain can be applied to vehicles or drivers registered in foreign countries. but fines never be collected. Some countries do however enforce. and sanction may vary depending on the offence: In Greece tickets may be issued in all 3 focus areas.The complete TLE chain can be applied to vehicles or drivers registered in foreign Member States. the violator has to make a money deposit and at least regarding speed violations he may be prohibited to drive in Spain for the next 1-3 months. while drink-driving always goes to Court. In Cyprus foreign speed violations should be very serious to go to Court. This applies to speeding offences as well as drink-driving and non-restraint use. In Cyprus a large percentage – about 30% . In United Kingdom identifying foreign speed violators detected by speed cameras may be difficult. In Czech Republic cross border enforcement is partly realized in the case of truck drivers. In Lithuania and Ireland the enforcement chain can not be applied. unless they pay. drink-driving and restraint use. but not in the case of personal car drivers. Foreign drivers not wearing seat belts would probably be warned/educated in first instance. Yes Yes Denmark No . The rest of the countries have some more limited sanction possibilities. 21/08/2008 75 Final . This account for speeding. prosecute and sentence foreign drivers according to bilateral agreements that have emerged between them. There are problems with collecting fines.It is only possible with Germany according to a contract.are foreigners. In Spain.Only drivers from the Scandinavian countries can be prosecuted and sanctioned No -foreign drivers can be prosecuted to some extend. No Switzerland No . There is no evidence to suggest foreign drivers are a problem in United Kingdom. and as for Italy this is unknown –it depend of the administration.

prosecution or sentencing when there will be no result at all and above that other problems could easily be encountered that raise the cost and effort considerably. information from 14 countries shows in general that cross border enforcement in most of the countries does either not exist or it is only practiced to a limited degree. Switzerland has bilateral agreements with France. In at least 2 countries it is not possible at all. when it happens anyway it is the result of guidelines and policies drafted by the public prosecution offices and/or by the courts.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 Thus. Here the cost-benefit factor is central. Thus. Regarding drink-driving foreign drivers can be prosecuted to some extent. while the Netherlands have a bilateral agreement with Germany. the Netherlands and Germany. traffic law (and other national laws) does not make exemptions towards foreigners. in Denmark drivers from other Scandinavian countries can be prosecuted and sanctioned if they commit speed violations. It does not pay off to fully apply human resources on traffic law enforcement. It should be underlined that as such. and a foreign car can be impounded until matters have been settled. 21/08/2008 76 Final . Belgium and Switzerland. Only in 3 countries it is possible to apply the complete enforcement chain on speeding. drink-driving and restraint use. In Austria there is a bilateral agreement with Germany regarding speed violations.

Cyprus.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 7 PUBLICITY CAMPAIGNS The EC recommends that enhanced enforcement actions concerning the 3 kind of offences are combined with information of the public. not large campaigns Rarely 1-2 weeks 2-3 times in a year Switzerland No No No From the information collected on this topic it is not always clear. United Kingdom. given as publicity campaigns with the aim of making the public conscious of the subject concerned. Poland. Ireland and Denmark. or if it just states. Publicity campaigns are carried out in all 3 areas in 9 of the 18 countries: Lithuania. drink-driving and restraint use. The table below shows if publicity campaigns are accompanying enforcement actions within the three main areas: speed. In Greece.enforcement and campaigns are not very well coordinated Poland Yes Yes Yes Hungary No Yes Cyprus Yes Yes Yes Greece Yes Yes Yes Spain Yes Yes Yes Italy No Yes Netherlands Yes Yes Yes Austria No Yes Yes UK Yes Yes Yes Ireland Yes Yes Yes Belgium Yes Yes No Denmark Yes Yes Yes Sweden No.1.enforcement and campaigns are not very well coordinated (No) Enforcement and campaigns are not very well coordinated Yes . Spain. general or specific Road Safety Campaigns are presented to the public rather occasional close to big 21/08/2008 77 Final . Table 7. Greece. whether it addresses campaigns specifically carried out in combination with police enforcement. drink-driving and restraint use Country Speed Drink-driving Restraint use Latvia Yes Yes Lithuania Yes – long term speed campaigns are organized Yes – long term drink-driving campaigns are organized Yes – long term restraint use campaigns are organized Slovakia Yes Yes Yes Czech Republic (No) . if the campaigns are carried out at all. Slovakia. Publicity campaigns accompanying the enforcement in relation to speed.

1 Publicity campaigns regarding enforcement of speeding 12 out of 18 countries have reported that large scale speed campaigns related to enforcement take place. national advertising campaigns where speed driving is the central theme. In Poland the campaigns are carried out according to the “Strategic Road Safety Plan”and EC Recommendations. Moreover. Throughout the year there are also numerous smaller scale advertising campaigns related to speed driving and the BIVV/IBSR supports local initiatives by providing advertising material. on TV/radio etc. while Sweden states that there are no large campaigns combined with speed enforcement. In 5 countries large scale advertising campaigns are not combined with enforcement: Hungary. In Belgium the Belgian Road Safety Institute BIVV/IBSR makes regular large scale. but it seems to have very little influence on the behavior. The penalty points and loss of license part of enforcement is used. and as they are not combined with enforcement it is difficult to evaluate their effectiveness. since the Department has an ongoing bad press regarding speed cameras being used to raise revenue rather than promote safety. In Denmark enforcement is complemented by central and local campaigns. Switzerland and Czech Republic.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 national Holidays. many parties from the private sector and NGOs carry out campaigns against speed driving. Moreover. In the latter road safety campaigns targeted at speed driving are realized and they are one of the measures proposed by the National Road Safety Strategy. The enforcement issue is not overplayed. Italy. but enforcement and the campaigns are not very well coordinated. In Ireland speed advertisements are shown regularly on television and in the cinema. 7. but they are not evaluated pre and post. Austria. but mostly not in the form of regular road safety campaigns. serves as a below-the-line (free) campaign about ‘dangers’of enforcement. 21/08/2008 78 Final . The public debate about speed cameras in newspapers. restraint use and helmet wearing. focused on speeding as well as drink-driving.2 Publicity campaigns regarding drink-driving 15 out of the 18 countries have reported that large scale drink-driving campaigns related to enforcement take place. in Czech Republic large enforcement campaigns are accompanied with announcements in the mass media. In the United Kingdom the risk of speeding receives a very considerable publicity budget. A similar situation occurs in Greece although it is not reported in this research. 7. The National Road Safety Council has conducted a large public opinion study coupled with an observational study on speed to prepare countrywide awareness campaigns. Some of these campaigns have a very good creative concept.

The 3 countries not reporting seat belt campaigns related to enforcement are Latvia. and specific central as well as local campaigns are targeted at young people. and they are one of the measures proposed by the National Road Safety Strategy. In United Kingdom there is widespread publicity about drinking and driving . again.3 Publicity Campaigns regarding Restraint use 13 of the 16 countries seem to carry out large scale restrain use campaigns. However. it is uncertain whether the campaigns are related to enforcement or not. 21/08/2008 79 Final . Some of this refers to large fine and loss of license. but it is not an advertising campaign for the “drink-driving”enforcement. facilitating regional activities and scientific research on the publicity campaigns (pre-testing and effect monitoring). but they are not regularly complemented by enforcement activities. Hungary reports that there are drink-driving campaigns. The campaign is a cooperative approach of the alcohol problem in traffic led by the Ministry of Transport and in cooperation with the police and other public as well as private organizations. regional. In Austria there are TV and radio campaigns from the Minister of Traffic. All these activities are coordinated on a national level. These control activities can be organized on a local. national or international level. In Belgium and Switzerland large scale advertising campaigns are carried out. The ministry of transport has the overall responsibility for mass media publicity. In Switzerland there is a national advertising campaign to prevent drink-driving. The role of the police is to perform alcohol control activities and provide publicity on their findings. and in Belgium large scale campaigns related to drink-driving are complemented in the entire year. other appeal more to the emotional level.especially at Christmas. but mostly not in the form of regular road safety campaigns. In Denmark the enforcement is complemented by central campaigns. In Latvia there have been campaigns with slogan “Save the friend”on special midsummer time or on Christmas and New Year. In Czech Republic. In the Netherlands a big campaign (BOB) has been used since 2001 to reduce drink-driving. the campaign is the alcohol part of a more general road safety campaign. as with speed.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 In Czech Republic and Switzerland campaigns against drink-driving are not related to enforcement. 7. Large enforcement campaigns are accompanied with announcements in the mass media. but enforcement and the campaigns are not very well coordinated. Belgium and Switzerland. public campaigns targeted at drink-driving are carried out. but not by large scale. The role of the public prosecutor is to publicize cases brought to court and inform public on sanctions and disqualifications. Sweden reports that the enforcement of drink driving is only rarely combined with large publicity campaigns.

In Sweden campaigns for restraint use are carried out 1-2 weeks 2-3 times a year. All together large scale publicity campaigns are only carried out in all 3 areas (speeding. Spain. Slovakia. 21/08/2008 80 Final . Greece. Cyprus. United Kingdom has a new law about having correct child restraint and by now focus is more about correct restraint for age/size of child. Ireland and Denmark. In Czech Republic the Action Plan assigns very succinctly just the obligation to have one enforcement campaign focused on restraint systems use yearly. drinkdriving and non-seat belt use) in 9 of the 18 countries: Lithuania. In United Kingdom extensive publicity for front and rear seats have already been done over the years. Several of the countries carry out public campaigns in just one or two of the topics. United Kingdom. In Denmark and Austria increased seat belt enforcement actions linked to campaigns are held during the year. Poland. in Cyprus 3 per year together with the Pan European Campaigns. Moreover.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 In Cyprus and Greece campaigns are carried out regularly. for many of the countries it is not clear to which degree the campaigns are related to enforcement actions.

or target behaviors. are mentioned in all National Road Safety Plans. setting up point systems and handling of repeat violators. Traffic Law Enforcement (TLE) is always a significant component of National Road Safety Plans even if it is not always referred as such directly. but is simply due to the fact that “road safety” or “traffic enforcement” is just one of many socially worthy competitors for public funding. which is not because they are not aware of the importance and need for this basis. raising the number of alcohol tests (random or otherwise). The most common way is for every ministry that takes responsibility for certain area in the Plan to include its planned actions in its annual periodic general budget request. not many countries reported having of national Traffic Law Enforcement Strategy and plans derived from the National Road Safety Plan. especially with respect to categories described in the EC Recommendations (2004): Speeding. The proposed means in the National Road Safety Plans in order to improve the efficiency of Traffic Law Enforcement in the focus areas include general reference to “intensify” police enforcement. function and processes of the enforcement chain in the Member States. conducting seat belt enforcement campaigns.issuing by raising sanctions on the three target violations. Traffic Law Enforcement Plans at national and local levels While Traffic Law Enforcement is a significant component in most National Road Safety Plans. National Road Safety Plans Almost every country in the EU (including accession countries) has published a National Road Safety Plan with a “vision”.driving thresholds. and increasing the coordination of police enforcement with public media campaigns. drink. Most National Road Safety Plans do not include special funding provisions for the plan. To make an effective planning of enforcement measures towards these categories EC recommends that the Member States establish a national Traffic Law Enforcement Plan.driving and non restraint use in the strategy for reducing road fatalities.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 8 CONCLUSIONS This Deliverable presents the results of a questionnaire survey with participation from 17 Member States + Switzerland. concerns are about increasing citation. such as fine collection. a “target”and a varied mix of “safety problems”. restraint use and cross-border vehicles. but nearly all EU countries have focus on speeding. Moreover. drink driving. Most National Road Safety Plans do not specify fatality reduction targets by area of action. These problem areas. lowering speed limits and drink. and improving follow-up actions in the enforcement chain. Included in the objective is a description of information gaps in each State. Such a measure will always in some way be related to National Road Safety Plans. which is always limited. Most countries have accident reduction targets fairly similar to EC target of about -50% fatality reductions. increased reliance on automatic speed enforcement. The objective was to describe the structure. 21/08/2008 81 Final .

PEPPER Deliverable 6

Dissemination Level: PU

Contract No: 019744

Regarding Traffic Law Enforcement Plans, in countries with National (centralized) police
force, the ministry responsible for Police, together with Police Headquarters, will usually
prepare an annual work-plan for each branch of the police, including traffic police. Such plan
serves as a guideline for more specific plans by police sub- units (typically geographic police
districts and Local Police in urban communities). However, in all countries, irrespective of the
organizational structure of Traffic Police forces, the details of local Traffic Policing were not
determined at the top, by a National Traffic Law Enforcement Plan, but primarily by “local
wisdom”that “took in account”the suggestions or guidelines of a National policy or plan.
“Traffic police” is not a uniform entity. Police forces doing traffic work vary between and
within countries in many ways- structure, organization, annual plans and daily modes of
operation. This complexity has practical implications for implementing the EC
Recommendations on Enforcement and collecting the data requested by it. It may be more
difficult than perhaps anticipated.
Enforcement activities, sanctions and follow up procedures related to speeding, drink driving
and restraint use.
Most traffic law systems in EU countries are a mix of criminal and administrative law. A
comparison of the countries with criminal traffic law with those having primarily an
administrative system, suggests that the nature of the legal system is not a determining factor in
the level of road safety in the country.
There are several kinds of sanctions, e.g. fines, withdrawal of license etc. One relatively new
measure against traffic violation is the application of point systems. 13 countries reported
having Demerit Point Systems but in various designs. Only about half of the 13 countries are
covering all three offences considered.
Speeding
The speed limits vary significantly between the countries, especially for motorways and
highways. The lack of harmonization of speed limits may have the effect that drivers do not
respect the speed limits in their own country, as they can see that other countries sometimes
have higher speed limits on the same kind of roads. Moreover, the changes in speed limits
when one travel across the countries may be confusing.
In the EC Recommendations it is stated that the best practices with respect to speeding are the
use of automated speed enforcement systems, followed up by procedures that have the
necessary capacity to cope with a large number of violations.
Thus, if the full benefit of automatic speed violation registration should be obtained the
procedure after the registration should be more effective than by manual registrations, as the
technology has the capacity to automate and speed up the following steps in the TLE chain.
This is however not the case in 6 out of 8 countries given input on this topic. For these
countries the benefits of automated registration are then limited to only the first part of the
chain.

21/08/2008

82

Final

PEPPER Deliverable 6

Dissemination Level: PU

Contract No: 019744

Moreover, in 6 out of the 8 countries the legal responsibility for a speed limit violation
registered by automatic speed control lies with the owner of the vehicle or with the driver
indicated by the owner. This may cause long administrative processes trying to identify the
driver, and the process could be much more effective if the responsibility was belonging to the
owner only.
Sanctions for speeding violations are followed up with fines, and most often with a
combination of different kinds of sanctions, which is more effective than a single sanction.
The countries typically have a fully administrative procedure unless the offence is connected
with an accident, injury or death, in which case the prosecution becomes criminal. 9 countries
report to have the possibility of withdrawing the driving license in relation to large exceeding
or recidivism, whereas immobilization of the vehicle does not seem to be applied.
Drink driving
The BAC limits in the countries vary from 0.0 g/l to 0.8 g/l. The lowest BAC limits appears in
some of the Eastern countries. The EC Recommendation states that the best practice in this
field is the application of random breath testing with alcohol screening devices and the use of
evidential breath test devices.
Almost all the countries carry out random breath testing methods in systematic surveillances of
drink-driving as well as a part of the normal traffic enforcement.
The alcohol measuring method most often used are alcoholmeters and blood testing devices,
whereas evidential breath testing appears not to have been admitted to a high degree yet.
Sanctions for drink-driving violations are – similar to speed sanctions- followed up with fines,
and most often with a combination of different kinds of sanctions.
In most of the 18 countries the sanctions are depending of the severity of the violation, and this
also determines whether the follow-up procedures are administrative or criminal. Further,
sanctions are more severe in cases of repeated violation. In almost all the countries driving
license can be suspended in severe cases, as well as drivers may be sentenced to prison of
imprisonment of some kind, whereas immobilization of the vehicle seems to be a more rare
possibility.
The reported mean time for a speed violation prosecution to come to court varies from 1 to 12
months, while the mean time for a drink-driving violation to go to court varies from 1-6
months. However, these numbers are based on only information from only a few countries. The
length of the period may depend on e.g. the seriousness of the violation as well as the strain of
the Court.
Restraint use
In almost all the countries restraint use is in general obligatory for all persons. However,
almost all of them have also exceptions from the obligatory restraint use. These are typically

21/08/2008

83

Final

PEPPER Deliverable 6

Dissemination Level: PU

Contract No: 019744

drivers of vehicles with specific functions, such as taxis, bus drivers, emergency vehicles or
driver’s with medical reasons.
While EC states that the best practice in this field is to carry out intensive enforcement actions
of a certain duration and which take place several times a year, only half of the 18 countries
reports having consistent and repeated enforcement of restraint use.
The sanctions for not wearing a seat belt vary a lot in the countries; sanction is always a fine,
and in 10 countries fines are combined with at least demerit points. In 3 countries the penalty is
harder, if children are not wearing seat belts, and in 3 countries there is also a possibility of
suspension of driving license for a shorter or longer period. It is difficult to evaluate, whether
the sizes of the fines - without combinations with other measures - have a deterrent effect, but
the impression is that this is not always the case. Considering the great safety effect of this
measure it may be that fines are often are too low to be preventive – especially in combination
with the fact that the risk of being caught is not very high.
In general, there is a wide range of different sanctions and sanction combinations in the
countries, and it is hard to estimate especially if the size of fines has a preventive effect.
Rehabilitation programs
Alongside or instead of sanctions it may in some cases be appropriate to impose a remedial
measure, e.g. if a person has a drinking problem.
11 countries have rehabilitation schemes or programs of some kind which seems most often
just to be traffic lessons or improvement courses. Such programs may be voluntary as well as
obligatory. The quality and effects of the programs are unknown. Sometimes the idea is that if
a driver participates in a program, it will cause reduction in the sanction given.
Cross border enforcement
Information from 14 countries shows in general that cross border enforcement in most of the
countries does either not exist or it is only practiced to a limited degree. Only in 3 countries it
is possible to apply the complete enforcement chain on speeding, drink-driving and restraint
use. In at least 2 countries it is not possible at all.
Thus, this topic has perhaps the poorest compliance with the EC recommendations saying that
there should be a mechanism for cross border enforcement in relation to serious and/or
repeated violations committed by foreign drivers.
Publicity Campaigns
EC recommends that enforcement actions are combined with information to the public to make
them aware of such enforcement actions and of the reasons why they are being held. The
results show however, that publicity campaigns are only carried out in all 3 areas (speeding,
drink-driving and non-seat belt use) in 9 of the 18 countries. Several of the countries have
public campaigns just in one or two of the topics. Moreover, from the information collected, it
is not always clear, to which degree the campaigns are related to enforcement actions.

21/08/2008

84

Final

PEPPER Deliverable 6

Dissemination Level: PU

Contract No: 019744

Thus, it appears as if the practice varies between the countries, and that the EC
recommendations underlining the importance of enhanced enforcement actions being
combined with publicity campaigns are not followed often and precisely
Availability of data required by the EC Recommendations
In the Annex of the EC Recommendations of Enforcement EC call on the Member States to
report to EC a description of the TLE chain, TLE action plans and implementation of the plans
as well as data concerning the focus areas: Speeding, drink-driving, seat belt use and cross
border vehicles.
TLE chain description is attainable, in principle, in each of the countries, but much more
complex than perhaps anticipated. The enforcement action plans that are available in most
countries are very generic, mainly principles and not detailed plans. Data about actual
implementation of traffic policing, are especially scarce. Countries with traffic data
Observatories can provide some behavioral indicators. At present, no country can provide
reliable national data on actual deployment of police enforcement, especially not in urban
areas.
In the Recommendation the Member States are requested to designate an enforcement
coordination point which should be used for exchanging information on best enforcement
practice in the above mentioned fields. The Coordination Point should forward the information
to the Commission as well as to the other Member States.
All countries reported that they do not have a single designated office (Enforcement
Coordination Point) in charge of collecting the TLE data from the many sources in a country.
In some countries, a concern was raised about whom in a country will take on the very sizable
administrative burden required to collect and organize the information requested in the
Recommendations and share it with the EC and other countries. In some cases the police are
responsible for certain kinds of data collection, while sometimes it is more appropriate that
other Government Agencies take care of the data collection.
However, accident data are available in all countries. They are collected routinely in all
European countries, and sent to the IRTAD database and sometimes to the CARE database too.
Looking more specifically on the data categories described in the Annex of the Commission
Recommendation the following picture appears:
For speeding, most of the countries are collecting data concerning Automatic speed
enforcement equipment, violation and sanction statistics and speed enforcement procedures.
Out of 16 countries 10 countries reports to collect data concerning changes in the rules of
speeding and less than half collects information on court decisions. Statistics of speed
violations by foreign vehicle drivers is the least covered area.
For drink-driving in general, most of the countries collect data concerning random and
evidential breath testing as well as violation and sanction statistics. A little more than half of
the countries collect data of changes in rules on drink-driving. On the other hand, court
decision statistics and especially statistics on violations by foreign drivers are more sparse.

21/08/2008

85

Final

lateral agreements regarding exchange of information among EU countries about cross border traffic violations. but the specific terms of bilateral cross border TLE agreements vary among countries and they are limited to reciprocal tracing of violators and collection of traffic fines. while data collection on violations by foreign drivers is the absolute poorest within all three areas. In the lower end of data collection appears court decisions and the poorest case is –as with speeding and drinkdriving –statistics on violations by foreign vehicle drivers. Less attention is given to data collection concerning changes in rules and Court decisions.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 The data collection regarding restraint use is most extensive when it comes to violation statistics. 21/08/2008 86 Final . No country allows another country to access its registries. there is a clear picture that violation and sanction data are most frequently collected. while statistics on sanctions and changes of rules are more modest. All together. There are some bi-lateral and multi.

CERTH/HIT TIS.5 tonnes European Commission (2006): European Union. Safety on Roads.PEPPER Deliverable 6 Dissemination Level: PU Contract No: 019744 9 REFERENCES CARE (2005). CARE project data http://europa. Bucharest. 75775 Paris CEDEX 16. European Commission (2004). 29-30 May 2002 Enforcement Monitor (2006) (all numbers): ETSC’s news letter on Traffic Law Enforcement in the EU. Road Safety Country Profiles.htm ECMT (2002). 2 rue Andre-Pascal. Brussels.eu. Official Journal of the European Union. Energy and Transport in Figures. White paper. PEPPER: Deliverable 6: Comparison and analysis of traffic Enforcement chains across EU Member States and in relation to EU policies. 75-82. OECD publications. What’s The Vision? Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development. OECD (2002). Traffic Law Enforcement across the EU: An Overview. L111. ANNEX. Commission Recommendation of 6 April 2004 on enforcement in the field of road safety.PT (2004): Comparative Study of Road Traffic Rules and Corresponding Enforcement Actions in the Member States of the European Union” 21/08/2008 87 Final . A shared responsibility. European Commission (2001). PEPPER Working Paper 4 (05/03/2007): Pilot study: Guidelines for the collection of Traffic Law Enforcement (TLE) information. European transport policy for 2010: time to decide. European Commission (2003). By Vassilios Vavakos & Panos Papaioannou. Council of Ministers of Transport. Directive 91/671/EEC regarding compulsory use of safety belts in vehicles of less than 3. (All numbers) ETSC (2006).000 lives on our roads. European Transport Safety Council. ECMT Key Recommendations on Road Safety.int/comm/transport/care/index_en. 2004/345/EC. Saving 20. 2006.