You are on page 1of 237

1

2

Road Safety Task Force

White Paper
Making the Business Case for Road Safety Investment to Achieve Sustainable Road Mobility

2011
3

Edited by Michelin MFPM - DGAP 27, cours de l’Ile Seguin – 92105 Boulogne-Billancourt Layout : Bonaventure Inforgraphy : Patrick Vallot 09-2011

4

“Road safety activities are highly cost-effective and provide a higher rate of return than any other investment in transport” Asian Development Bank

5

Abstract
Road crashes have a major negative social and economic impact – in developing countries, the monetary cost is greater than the total aid received from international donors. Developed countries have already delivered huge improvements in road safety. Governments need to understand that expenditure in road safety is an investment in the social and economic wellbeing of their citizens. It is not a cost. For businesses, the human cost of crashes is very high: around 30% of crashes are work related, and the private sector has recognized the need to invest in road safety. Case studies and examples from business and government show a massive return on investment from road safety initiatives. The main aim of the White Paper is to produce a status report and roadmap on the business case for road safety investment to achieve sustainable road mobility based on two guiding principles: A. The costs of road crashes represent a significant obstacle to poverty reduction in developing and emerging countries. Reductions in road fatalities and injuries make it 7

possible for governments to re-direct resources that would otherwise have gone to pay the costs of crashes toward programs to generate sustainable mobility. B. Towards zero work-related traffic fatalities: a business model that works. This report is directed toward governments, large fleet operators and private companies. It is a contribution to the Global Decade of Action for Road Safety, and it supports the inclusion of road safety in the Millennium Development Goals and the G 20 agenda.

8

Table of Content
7 9 13 15 17 21 23 35 39 39 40 45 50 51 55 57 Abstract Table of Content List of the Tables Explanatory note Foreword Acknowledgments Executive Summary Introduction: the rationale Chapter 1: The cost of road crashes 1. The importance of crash costing 2. Crash costing methods 3. Cost estimates for selected countries 4. Derived effect of the costs 5. Impact on deprived communities Executive Summary Chapter 2: Economic evaluation of road safety measures 1. Evaluation methods 2. Case studies 2.1. The causes of crashes 2.2. Potential for reduction 2.3. Benefit-Cost and cost-efficiency analyses Executive Summary

57 61 61 63 64 70

9

73 73 77 79 80 82 84 87 87 90 91 92 92 94 96 100 103 110 111 111 112 114

Chapter 3: Public sector responsibility 1. Action Plan for the Decade of Action for Road Safety 2. Key aim for road safety: reducing motor vehicle dependence 3. A shared approach to managing road safety – Multilateral Development Banks 4. ADB approach for developing countries 5. A road safety policy analysis 6. A methodological approach 7. Case studies 7.1. Bloomberg Philanthropies’ global road safety program 7.2. Latin New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) 7.3. Road Safety in Nigeria 7.4. Road Safety in Argentina 7.5. Africa regional trade corridor road safety. World Bank and Total initiative 7.6. Benefiting Brazilian mass transit ridership’s with a safer system 7.7. Micro Computer Accident Analysis package (MAAP) in Botswana Executive Summary Chapter 4: The private sector involvement 1. Delivering a business message to business 2. Corporate responsibility 3. Supply chain 4. Practical ideas/suggestions 5. The business case for action within the business 10

115 117 121 122 124 129 133 135 146 155

6. Description of case studies Executive Summary Chapter 5: Private-public partnership 1. Main reasons for business sector participation 2. Qatar road safety business case study Conclusion Appendix Appendix 1: Cost estimates for selected countries Appendix 2: Road Safety Investments in India Appendix 3: Actions being taken for road safety by Ministry of Road Transport & Highways and IRF (India Chapter) Appendix 4: A shared approach to managing road safety -Multilateral Development Banks Appendix 5: Arval Case Study Appendix 6: Michelin’s Road Safety Commitments Appendix 7: The Network of Employers for Traffic Safety (NETS) Appendix 8: Praising Best Practice in Road Safety ‘At’ Work and ‘To’ Work - PRAISE Appendix 9: Renault Ile de France – A business case study of fleet safety management measures Appendix 10: Road Safety in Shell Appendix 11: Driving for Better Business – Champion Case Study – TNT EXPRESS Bibliography

163 169 172 181 183 184 197 204 223

11

List of the tables
46 60 62 63 65 66 67 83 108 Table 1: Recent Estimates of Economic Costs of Road Crashes Table 2: Possible scheme of a systematic evaluation of road safety activities, ROSEBUD Table 3: Causes of crashes involving personal injuries in Germany (2009) Table 4: Potential for reduction of traffic accidents Table 5: Cost-benefit results of traffic safety measures Table 6: Cost-effectiveness analyses for different groups of measures Table 7: Nairobi road safety investment program (iRAP, 2009) Table 8: Stages of a road safety policy analysis (based on Evik 2007) Table 9: Costs to Employers per Million Vehicle Miles of Travel (M VMT) and Costs per On-the-Job Highway Crash and Injury, 1998-2000 Table 10: Summary of Data Requirements and Sources of each Cost Component Table 11: Revised estimates for costs of road traffic crash injuries in India Table 12: Summary of Total Costs, 2000 (in millions US $) Table 13: Number of Fatalities in Road Traffic Accidents in Russia (2001-2009) Table 14: Number of Fatalities in Road Traffic Accidents in India (2001-2009) 12

135 137 139 145 147

188 205 218

Table 15: Commuter Travel Accident Trend (Renault) Table 16: TNT Express Table 17: Blameworthy road traffic accident rate (TNT Express)

13

Explanatory note
The White Paper is divided into five parts. The first one presents the different costing methods and some case studies, while also looking into the impact on low-income communities. The second describes the methods to analyze the cost-benefit and cost-efficiency of measures and provides some examples of the most efficient and profitable measures. The third deals with the costs of crashes for businesses. The fourth provides guidelines for implementing an effective and cost-efficient road safety public policy. The final section describes the benefits of private-public partnership in the road safety area. Executive summary provides an introduction, short conclusions of each part of the White Paper and a global conclusion. It is provided for readers who might not have enough time to read the full report and indicates which chapter they should refer to for more details. Some case studies in the report are described in detail, while others are limited to a brief description with a link to the full document. The appendices provide additional case studies written by the experts for our report.

15

Foreword

It is my great pleasure to present you with the following White Paper which represents the efforts of the participants of the workshop in the framework of the 11th Edition of Challenge Bibendum, held in Berlin in May 2011. Following the launch of the Decade of Action for Road Safety eighteen high-level experts in the road safety area both from private and public sectors gathered to report on the business case for investment to achieve safe sustainable road mobility. Road crash deaths and injuries are now recognized as a global public health epidemic and development concern, requiring action especially in low- and middle-income countries. Using case studies from low- and middle-income countries and from private sector the White Paper will: – Make the case for serious investment by governments in road safety for their people and recommend the need to develop clear and accepted methodology for cost assessment, applicable for countries with poor data. – Show how some private sector companies have recognized the need to invest to improve road safety performance. – Provide strong examples of public-private and peer to peer partnerships. – Highlight how governments are achieving success through investing in road safety.

17

We recognize that there are plenty of other road safety case studies of different governments, organizations and NGOs which are effective and contribute to the noble goal of reducing crash deaths and injuries all over the world. The examples you will find in this White Paper were selected by the group of well known experts in road safety who participated in the Challenge Bibendum workshop in Berlin. They found the case studies useful for the stakeholders both from public and private sectors to elaborate road safety programs. This White Paper will contribute to the Global Decade of Action for Road Safety, the inclusion of road safety in the Millennium Development Goals and the G 20 agenda. It will show that road crashes have a major negative economic and social impact, especially in developing countries. Developed countries have proven that efficient measures can be taken to reduce crashes. In many OECD countries the number of road fatalities has been reduced by more than 50% since 1970. The White Paper will show how business is tackling this issue where around 30% of road traffic crashes are work related, and how businesses and civil society can work in partnership with governments to reduce crashes and improve efficiency. The paramount objective of this White Paper is to deliver a clear message to governments, public authorities and the private sector that, beyond reducing deaths and injuries, expenditure in road safety is an investment and not a cost each US Dollar invested in road safety returns 15 US

18

Dollars on average, which makes the rate of return a stunning 1,500%1.

Paris, France September, 2011

Patrick Lepercq, Corporate Vice President Public Affairs, Michelin

1 This calculation has been made on the basis of the Swiss case study (Eckhardt and Seitz, 1998), a case study on the Safer Roads Investment Plan for Serbia (Safer Roads Investment Plans: The iRAP Methodology) and a study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) “What Do Traffic Crashes Cost?”

19

20

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to the contributors to the White Paper Making the business case for road safety investment to achieve sustainable road mobility: Ken Shaw, Workshop Co-Chair, Global Road Safety Partnership, Senior Advisor. Adrian Walsh, Workshop Co-Chair, RoadSafe, Director. Tatiana Mazanova, Workshop Technical Secretary, Michelin, Public Affairs. Omidiji Adeyemi, Federal Road Safety Corps, Deputy Corps Marshall. Claudia Adriazola-Delgado, Embarq, The WRI Centre for Sustainable Transport, Health & Road Safety Program, Director. Rohit Baluja, IRTE India, President. Saul Billingsley, FIA Foundation, Deputy Director General. Richard Driscoll, Renault SAS, Road Safety Manager. Jack Hanley, Network of Employers for Traffic Safety, Executive Director. Marc Juhel, World Bank, Sector Manager, Transport. Kiran Kapila, IRF, Chairman. Jacqueline Lacroix, German Road Safety Council, Head of Division for European Affairs. Britta Lang, TRL, Behaviour Change Group, Principal Research Consultant. Patrick Lepercq, Workshop Sponsor, Michelin, Corporate Vice President Public Affairs. 21

Will Murray, Interactive Driving Systems®, Research Director. Stephanie Pratt, CDC/NIOSH, Coordinator, NIOSH Center for Motor Vehicle Safety. Valentin Silyanov, MADI Institute, Vice Rector. Kevin Warburton, TNT Express, HSE Manager Corporate Responsibility. Mike Watson, Shell, Manager Road Safety.

22

Executive Summary
Road crashes have a major negative social and economic impact – in developing countries, the monetary cost is greater than the total aid received from international donors. Road transportation has been a major factor for development by increasing mobility. Among other things, it has fostered trade, access to markets, education and health care. Unfortunately, the increase in transportation has not been without a set of negative side effects particularly in the form of road crashes. The World Health Organization has estimated that in 2004 road crashes caused 1.27 million deaths and between 20 and 50 million people suffered non-fatal injuries2. Over 90% of the accident fatalities happen in low-income and middleincome countries while they account for only 48% of the world’s registered vehicles. It is striking that in developing countries most of the casualties are vulnerable road users, for instance 70% of the road related deaths in the Western Pacific Region were vulnerable road users. In 2004, road traffic injuries were the 9th leading cause of death and according to estimates from the WHO, they will rise to being the 5th in 2030. The most affected age group is 15-29, where road crashes are the leading cause of death. The World Health Organization and the Association for Safe International Road Travel have jointly developed a book
2 WHO 2009 Global Status Report.

23

entitled "Faces behind the figures: voices of road traffic crash victims and their families", to put a human face on the statistics presented in the many road safety reports published around the world3. The stories demonstrate the physical, psychological, emotional and economic devastation that results from road traffic injuries. The fast growing market for vehicles in developing countries gives us a gloomy scenario for the future. If no action is taken, the WHO estimates that the number of deaths related to road traffic to be of 2.4 million in 2030. Developed countries have managed to stabilize and even decrease the number of road crashes and related deaths and injuries, thus the additional number of deaths is expected to come from developing countries. Working for road safety is not only morally correct, it also fulfils an economic rationale. The cost of crashes in the world is estimated to be around 518 billion US Dollars and to cost between 1 and 3% of a country’s GDP; a cost to the whole society4. The burden on developing countries is 65 billion dollars, representing more than the total aid received from bilateral and multilateral donors. Crashes are not only a massive money drain for countries; they are also a socioeconomic issue5. Still, the number of road crashes and fatalities is high and incompatible with sustainable mobility. The impact of
3 WHO &ASIRT 2007: Faces behind the figures. 4 WHO 2009 Global Status Report 5 TNT Express has initiated a social fund in India to address this specific issue. This fund is available to support families of any person killed in a road traffic accident involving a contractor vehicle operating on behalf of TNT India

24

crashes is significantly greater on low-income households than on non-low-income. A study of Bangladesh and the city of Bangalore showed that more than 50% of the households that were considered poor after a crash leading to a death or serious injury wouldn’t have been classified as such before the crash6. Poor families often have to take up loans or sell property in order to cope with the loss of income and costs of a death or injury. The launch of the Global Decade for Action for Road Safety 2011-2020 is a proof that governments, businesses and civil society are slowly realizing that it is “Time for Action”. The reduction in the numbers of crashes in developed countries has shown that road crash prevention is possible and profitable. Development banks, bilateral donors and business are more and more aware of the urgency of the situation, particularly in developing countries, and willingness to provide funds, grants, technical support or have pilot programs in order to contain the growing flow of crashes is growing. The causes of crashes are known and efficient and profitable actions to fight them have also been applied and proven. It is important that the Decade of Action not only raises awareness but also leads to political action in coordination with the private sector, which can positively influence road safety through fleet management and through road safety investments and advocacy in the places in which it conducts
6 The Involvement and Impact of Road Crashes on the Poor: Bangladesh and India Case Studies, by Ms A. Aeron-Thomas (TRL), Dr G. D. Jacobs (TRL), Mr B. Sexton (TRL), Dr G. Gururaj (NIMHANS), and Dr F. Rahman (ICMH), July 2004, p. 19.

25

business. There are no possible excuses to disregard road safety as an essential component of public policies. It is clearly essential to estimate the cost of crashes to the overall economy at a country level. Such studies highlight the socio-economic burden of road crashes, which are considered to cost annually between 1% and 3% of the national GDP in developing countries. Death or injury due to road crashes has a much wider socio-economic impact on the poor than on the non-poor. Road crashes take a huge toll in human lives and on a country’s economy. Developing countries have limited resources, which must be channeled toward the most efficient ways to achieve development and poverty reduction. A well aimed road safety policy could prevent many households from falling under the poverty line. Six different methods have been identified to estimate the costs of road crashes, but most researchers and organizations prefer to use the “gross output” method in order to estimate the cost of road crashes in developing countries. This method would seem to provide the most balanced approach as it takes into account both the direct and indirect costs of crashes. To control the high economic costs due to road crashes, governments must evaluate the potential for substantial returns on investments to be made on road safety interventions. The Commission for Global Road Safety has recommended that 10% of overall investment in roads should be allocated to road safety. Road safety is a shared responsibility; therefore, in addition to governments, all those who gain from the movement of traffic and the infrastructure thereof should be asked to consider investment of a small percentage of their profits in safety management. 26

Road crashes have often been considered to be inevitable, but developed countries’ policies have proven that efficient measures can be taken to reduce crashes, fatalities, injuries and costs. In the USA, for instance, enforcement of seat belt and drink driving laws, coupled with safer vehicles, have contributed to a reduction in traffic-related deaths from 55,000 in 1980 to 32,000 in 2010. In many OECD countries, such as France, the UK and Sweden, the number of road fatalities has been reduced by more than 50% since 1970. Developing countries need to initiate the process of preparing their national road safety plans through which guidelines and standards can be set dealing with all aspects of managing and improving infrastructure, enforcement, driver training, post-crash management and safety awareness. There are various reasons why the government intervenes in the market for road traffic and road traffic safety. These are particularly related to attempts to allocate production resources more efficiently. Two methods are available for assessing the efficiency of measures, the Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) and the CostEffectiveness Analysis (CEA). There is little disagreement about their methodology and they are regularly applied in many areas of government policy. A CBA can be used to establish the social benefits of a package of traffic safety measures (or of an individual measure); whereas a CEA determines, amongst other things, how a fixed budget can be spent on measures in a way that maximizes safety effects. At the moment the efficiency question can only be answered in a limited way using the appropriate evaluation methods. Still it is recommended that decisions on the total road safety budget and the composition of packages of 27

countermeasures be taken after an explicit comparison of costs and effects. The theoretical model of CBA offers the best design to evaluate these decisions: a method to assess systematically the social advantages and disadvantages, and to process this information. The feasibility of the CBA will depend on the available data in each case and on the resources (time, manpower, money) provided for the research. The final choice always falls to those who bear the political or administrative responsibility for the decision being taken. The use of evaluation methods will provide information which supports the making and justification of decisions. Roads are generally publicly-owned assets, managed and controlled by central or local government. Although the roads are mainly used by private individuals and businesses, traditionally, road safety has been seen as a responsibility of government, linked to their ownership of the infrastructure. This traditional view is changing however and the understanding that collaboration in road safety issue is a win-win business case both for public and private sectors is now strengthening. The UN General Assembly proclaimed 2011-2020 the Decade of Action for Road Safety, with a global goal of stabilizing and then reducing the forecasted level of global road fatalities by increasing activities conducted at national, regional and global levels. The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon called on Member States, international agencies, civil society organizations, businesses and community leaders to ensure that the Decade leads to real improvements. As a step in this direction, a number of governments have

28

released their national plans for the Decade at the official global launch of the Decade on 11 May 2011. A systematic, multisectoral response is required to address this global crisis, including interventions to improve the safety of road infrastructure, vehicles, road users behavior and post-crash response. Roads are an essential component of modern mobility planning. Funding and resources allocation is the best possible indicator of a country’s aspiration to achieve a reduction of road deaths. The recommendations are that a well-defined amount of road spending is devoted to road safety, that national targets for improving road safety are set and that data systems for monitoring progress toward those targets be developed and maintained. It is important to send a message to all stakeholders that expenditure in road safety is an investment and not a cost, with the initial cost resulting in much greater savings in the future. Road safety activities are highly cost-effective and provide a higher rate of return than any other investment in transport. However, it is essential that programs be monitored and that future measures be selected based on what is already known about their efficiency. Above all it must be understood that the inherent safety and protective quality of road networks is for the benefit of all road users, including the most vulnerable (e.g. pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, children, and older citizens). The human and economic costs of motor vehicle crashes for businesses is very high. In most countries, 20 to 35% of the crashes are work-related crashes (be it driving to and from work or driving in the framework of a professional mission). In addition, corporate reputation and brand image are increasingly important and poor road safety performance 29

can be very detrimental and used to challenge a company’s CR credentials. Unfortunately, many businesses are not aware of the direct and indirect costs they absorb as a result of crashes. The decentralized nature of many businesses does not lend itself to the aggregation of costs at a senior management level. Thus, many businesses are not aware of the significant costs associated with traffic crashes, and continue to view workrelated crashes as an unavoidable cost of operating a business. There is a need for continued work to raise awareness of risk prevention methods. To engage with business on road safety we need to deliver a clear, simple message to business that is based on actual practice. Good business practice improves efficiency and reduces risk from crashes, and there is a need for businesses to take this message to other businesses. A business must start with an understanding of its own road safety performance, followed by policies and practices focused on improving the driving behaviors of its own employees and the contractors they work with. The next step calls for businesses to reach-out to the communities where they operate and fund road safety programs. Momentum is advanced when business join together to encourage the public sector at local, regional and national levels to support – legislatively, for instance – road safety measures. Case studies of best practices suggest that improvements in work-related road safety performance are associated with the following factors: Top management commitment and leadership; Stakeholder involvement;

30

-

Clear plan with realistic timelines and responsibilities; Allocation of appropriate budgets and resources; Effective communication; Expertise to support business; Monitoring of performance and top management review; Shared learning and experience; Continual focus; Engagement in societal road safety programs.

In addition to managing risk for employees and contractors, many companies are actively engaged in advocacy and communication activities to raise general awareness and spur political action. Private companies’ political influence is commensurate with their financial standing in the national economy. Companies can, and should, use this influence to demonstrate leadership in the area of road safety as they do in technology and other areas. They are a driving force in influencing policymakers to take decisive actions to improve road safety. The private sector as a whole has a responsibility to its workers, shareholders, and the larger society to prevent work-related road traffic crashes. Because work-related crashes are a large component of the total burden of crashes in many countries, well coordinated action between the private and the public sector is essential to making meaningful progress in reducing work-related road mortality. Around the world, road traffic crashes have devastating effects on the social and economic well-being of individuals and countries. The socio-economic ramifications are much bigger in developing countries, where there are fewer 31

resources to cope with the effects of crashes and low-income households benefit from neither social security nor labor security. Developing countries have limited resources, which must be channeled towards the most efficient ways to achieve development and poverty reduction. A well aimed road safety policy could prevent many households from falling under the poverty line. Road crashes have often been considered as a given irreversible factor, but developed countries’ policies have proven that efficient measures can be taken to reduce crashes. In many OECD countries, such as France, the UK or Sweden, the number of road fatalities has been reduced by more than 50% since 1970. Developing countries need to initiate the process of preparing their national road safety plans through which guidelines and standards can be set dealing with all aspects of managing and improving infrastructure, enforcement, driver training, post crash management and safety awareness. It is important to send a message to all stakeholders that expenditure in road safety is an investment and not a cost, with the initial investments leading to much greater savings in the future. Road safety activities are highly cost-effective and provide a higher rate of return than any other investment in transport. Selection of public policies for road safety should be based on effectiveness and efficiency: effectiveness because there is no value in implementing a policy that does not reduce crashes or injuries, and efficiency because limited resources should be directed toward the activities that yield the highest social return. It is essential for programs to be monitored. Accountability (and the measures needed to assess accountability) should be built into the operations of all governmental units with 32

responsibility for road safety and activities should be coordinated across all the relevant ministries. For businesses and organizations, effective management of vehicles and drivers will result in operational and financial benefits, improvements in safety and environmental performance, and safety benefits for the communities in which they conduct business. To raise general awareness and spur political action, companies are actively engaged in advocacy and communication activities. Private companies’ political influence is commensurate with their financial standing in the national economy. Companies can, and should, use this influence to demonstrate leadership in the area of road safety as they do in technology and other areas. They are a driving force in influencing policymakers to take decisive actions to improve road safety. Developing road safety programs as an investment rather than a cost, with cooperation between the public and private sectors, is the way to unleash funding for development of sustainable road mobility. In fact, each US Dollar invested in road safety returns 15 US Dollars on average, which makes the rate of return a stunning 1,500%.

33

Introduction
Road crashes have a major negative social and economic impact in developing countries, the monetary cost is greater than the total aid received from international donors. Road transportation has been a major factor for development by increasing mobility. Among other things, it has fostered trade, access to markets, education and health care. Unfortunately, the increase in transportation has not been without a set of negative side effects particularly in the form of road crashes. The World Health Organization has estimated that in 2004 road crashes caused 1.27 million deaths and between 20 and 50 million people suffered non-fatal injuries.7 Over 90% of the accident fatalities happen in low-income and middle income countries while they account for only 48% of the world’s registered vehicles. It is striking that in developing countries most of the casualties are vulnerable road users, for instance 70% of the road related deaths in the Western Pacific Region were vulnerable road users. In 2004, road traffic injuries were the 9th leading cause of death and according to estimates from the WHO, they will rise to being the 5th in 2030. The most affected age group is 15-29, where road crashes are the leading cause of death. The World Health Organization and the Association for Safe International Road Travel have jointly developed a book
7 WHO 2009 Global Status Report.

35

entitled "Faces behind the figures: voices of road traffic crash victims and their families", to put a human face on the statistics presented in the many road safety reports published around the world8. The stories demonstrate the physical, psychological, emotional and economic devastation that results from road traffic injuries. The fast growing market for vehicles in developing countries gives us a gloomy scenario for the future. If no action is taken, the WHO estimates that the number of deaths related to road traffic to be 2.4 million in 2030. Developed countries have managed to stabilize and even decrease the number of road crashes and related deaths and injuries, thus the additional number of deaths is expected to come from developing countries. Working for road safety is not only morally correct, it also fulfils an economic rationale. The cost of crashes in the world is estimated to be around 518 billion US Dollars and to cost between 1 and 3% of a country’s GDP; a cost to the whole society9. The burden on developing countries is 65 billion US Dollars, representing more than the total aid received from bilateral and multilateral donors. Crashes are not only a massive money drain for countries; they are also a socio-economic issue10. Still, the number of road crashes and fatalities is high and incompatible with sustainable mobility. The impact of
8 WHO &ASIRT 2007: Faces behind the figures. 9 WHO 2009 Global Status Report. 10 TNT Express has initiated a social fund in India to address this specific issue. This fund is available to support families of any person killed in a road traffic accident involving a contractor vehicle operating on behalf of TNT India.

36

crashes is significantly greater on low-income households than on non-low-income. A study of Bangladesh and the city of Bangalore showed that more than 50% of the households that were considered poor after a crash leading to a death or serious injury wouldn’t have been classified as such before the crash11. Poor families often have to take up loans or sell property in order to cope with the loss of income and costs of a death or injury. The launch of the Global Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011 – 2020 is a proof that governments, businesses and civil society are slowly realizing that it is “Time for Action”. The reduction in the numbers of crashes in developed countries has shown that road crash prevention is possible and profitable. Development banks, bilateral donors and business are more and more aware of the urgency of the situation, particularly in developing countries, and willingness to provide funds, grants, technical support or have pilot programs in order to contain the growing flow of crashes is growing. The causes of crashes are known and efficient and profitable actions to fight them have also been applied and proven. It is important that the Decade of Action not only raises awareness but also leads to political action in coordination with the private sector, which can positively influence road safety through fleet management and through road safety investments and advocacy in the places in which it conducts
11 The Involvement and Impact of Road Crashes on the Poor: Bangladesh and India Case Studies, by Ms A. Aeron-Thomas (TRL), Dr G. D. Jacobs (TRL), Mr B. Sexton (TRL), Dr G. Gururaj (NIMHANS), and Dr F. Rahman (ICMH), July 2004, p. 19.

37

business. There are no possible excuses to disregard road safety as an essential component of public policies.

38

Chapter 1 The cost of road crashes
1. The importance of crash costing At a country level, it is essential to estimate the cost of crashes for the overall economy. Such studies highlight the socio-economic burden of road crashes. In many countries, particularly in the developing world, road safety does not receive due consideration. Failing to asses the cost of traffic crashes prevents governments and civil society from realizing the importance of the economic drain that crashes provoke. Road crashes are considered to cost annually between 1% and 3% of the national GDP in developing countries12. In terms of public policy, governments need to have a clear estimate of the cost of road safety measures in order to both justify the investment of taxpayers’ money and to assess the efficiency of their policy. As far as the latter is concerned, thanks to an accurate estimate of the costs, governments can do cost-benefit analysis, which allows comparison of the profitability of such policy with any other government program; or cost-efficiency analysis, which allows the comparison of different road safety programs.

12 Road Safety guidelines for the Asian and Pacific region, ADB. Chapter 4.14 Road accident costing. p. 2.

39

2. Crash costing methods13 Six different methods have been identified to cost road crashes. More details are provided for the first two because they are the most commonly used. All of them are based on a before-hand classification of crashes. Crashes may result in personal injury, or in property damage only. Crashes resulting in injury are usually subdivided into the following categories (definitions used by most Western European countries, as well as by the WHO/UNRSC Data Manual, UNECE and IRTAD)14: - Fatal crashes: one or more killed due to the crash within 30 days; - Serious crashes: there are no deaths but there is one or more seriously injured persons; - Slight crashes: there are no deaths nor serious injuries but at least one person with a minor injury (i.e. cut, sprain or bruise). The cost of each crash type is hence not the same. In considering costs it is important to take this matter into consideration.

13 This part is based in the TRL overseas road note 10: costing road crashes in developing countries. 14 ibid p. 2

40

2.1. The “gross output” or “human capital” approach In this approach, costs can be divided into two groups, on the one hand those linked to a diversion of current resources and on the other hand, those leading to loss of future output. The first set of costs includes damage to property (mainly vehicles), the cost of medical treatment and police and administrative costs related to crashes (mainly courts and insurance staff). There is less consensus as to what should be included in the second set of costs and how estimates should be computed. Estimates are not individualized, but are taken from averages. The loss-of-output method takes the average amount of working years lost due to the crash, multiplies it by the average wage and the sum is discounted so as to be in present value. Some variants account for the value of pain, grief and suffering and they do so by multiplying a percentage of the lost output depending on the severity of the crash. This method allows for instance to revert the fact that the death of an elder person would actually be considered as beneficial for society in the previous calculation. This method has been criticized for several reasons. First on an ethical stand, it would set the economic or statistical value of a person living in a developed country higher than the one of a person living in a developing country. Second, there is debate as to how to account for domestic work, black market or the cost of time lost in traffic (although the NHTSA, 2002 report on the “The economic impact of motor vehicle crashes in 2000”, provides a good estimate of those costs). Third, this method requires an important amount of information not always available in developing countries.

41

Finally, it is hard to take into account the social impact of the loss of a family’s earner. As it shall be developed further, in developing countries, the impact may be much higher, particularly considering the loss of income for a family, the need to sell productive property to cover for medical expenses or the fact that a child might drop school to take care of the injured family member. Also it is necessary to take into account a lack of social legislation to provide social welfare benefits e.g. unemployment benefit, disability allowance etc. 2.2. The “implicit public sector valuation” approach This method estimates the cost implicitly set by state regulation and public policies in road crash and death prevention. The main problem with this approach is that public policies attribute very different values to life depending on the sector. In the UK, studies have shown that using this approach the value of life could range from 50 Pounds Sterling to 20 million15. Most researchers and organizations (TRL, ADB, iRAP…) prefer to use the “gross output” method in order to estimate the cost of road crashes in developing countries. This method would seem to provide the most balanced approach as it takes into account both the direct and indirect costs of crashes. However, to correct for some of the gross output method’s flaws an allowance is added, per type of injury, as a percentage of the cost. In developing countries, the Transport Research Laboratory recommends adding 38% of
15 Ibid, p. 3.

42

the total cost for a fatal crash, 100% for a serious injury and 8% for a minor injury to the cost16. In developed countries, another study suggests the sums added should be equal to 20% for a fatal crash, 50% for a serious crash, 30% for a major crash and 1% for a minor crash17. 2.3. The “value of risk change” or “willingness to pay” approach This approach based on the premise that a public sector decision should reflect the preferences of the citizens that it will affect. This method estimates the value given to a road safety risk reduction; it is “defined in terms of the aggregated amount that people are prepared to pay for it”, it could also be estimated by the amount people would require in compensation of an increased risk18. This method provides a much higher value for human life but is hard to put in place since there are both a sampling bias and an interview bias. Usually questionnaires put in place for this method assess the amount of money they would be willing to pay for a certain risk reduction. For example a questionnaire indicating that drivers are willing to pay 10 US Dollars for a risk reduction of one chance in 250,000 that they would be killed in a particular journey then the value of an average life would be 2.5 million US Dollars (250 000 x 10).

16 ibid p. 7. 17 Department for International Development, Ross Silcock, TRL Guidelines for Estimating the Cost of Road Crashes in Developing Countries, May 2003, p. 32. 18 ibid, p. 3.

43

This method is being used more and more in developed countries, for instance in the UK. Nevertheless, due to the difficulty of obtaining reliable empirical estimates, this approach is hard to apply in developing countries. Furthermore, questionnaires could only be administered to adults and there would be an important bias considering that the proportion of children killed or injured in traffic crashes in developing countries is double that in developed countries. 2.4. The “net output” approach

The difference between this approach and the first is that the discounted value of the victim’s future consumption is subtracted from the gross output figure. Once again, it is hard to estimate a person’s lifetime consumption. The “raison d’être” of this method is that the difference between the production of an individual and its consumption can be considered as the society’s economic interest in a person’s survival. It is so to say his added value to society. a) The “life-insurance” approach This approach considers that the cost of a road crash derives from the value at which people are willing to or can insure their lives. This method provides an interesting estimate of the value of the insured person’s life to their dependents. Nevertheless, it gives no information on the value of life to the insured person. The insured person may well also be underestimating the value of their life to their dependents. Furthermore, this approach seems to be inapplicable in developing countries where the practice of 44

life insurance is very limited and only the richest get their life insured. b) The “court-award” approach This method estimates the value of life or injury by averaging the sums awarded by courts, which result from a crime or a negligence, to the surviving dependants or the injured person. This approach is of limited interest because the sums awarded by courts depend greatly on the degree of responsibility of the culprit. Furthermore, this method only includes private costs. 3. Cost estimates for selected countries It appears that in most countries the overall cost of road crashes exceeds 1% of the GDP19. The estimated cost of crashes ranges from 0.3% of the GDP in Vietnam to almost 5% in the US. Crashes would cost the world some 518 billion US $ a year20. The OECD later estimated the cost of road crashes for its member countries to be 450 billion US $, the equivalent of 2% of their GDP21. As far as developing countries are concerned, the cost is estimated to be 65 billion US $, which would account for more than the total aid received from bilateral and multilateral sources22.
19 Dinesh Mohan, Social cost of road traffic crashes in India, p. 3. 20 Jacobs, Aeron-Thomas and Astrop, p. 11. 21 Mohan, p. .3. 22 Jacobs, Aeron-Thomas and Astrop p, 11; WHO Global Status Report, 2009.

45

Table 1: Recent Estimates of Economic Costs of Road Crashes

The above table provides a crude estimate of global and regional costs assuming that the annual cost of road crashes is about 1% in developing countries, 1.5% in transitional countries, and 2% in highly motorized countries.In the table 46

above, HC method refers to the Human Capital approach and WTP Willingness to Pay. The first need for cost figures is at the level of national resource planning to ensure that adequate investment in road safety takes place in a given country. It helps at the national planning level therefore to provide decision makers with an estimate of the annual cost of road crashes. For example, in a study undertaken by TRL in the early 1990s (unpublished) the annual cost of crashes in Mauritius was calculated to be 32 million US Dollars. A series of recommendations were outlined at a total cost of 800,000 US Dollars spread over a five year period which could reduce crashes (and hence costs) by 5% p.a. (i.e. saving 1.6 million US Dollars p.a.). Thus the average first year rate of return on investment was estimated to be 1,000%. High rates of returns such as these are in fact, fairly common in road safety appraisals, and indicate clearly the value to be obtained in crash-reducing measures. A second need for crash cost figures is to ensure that the best use is made of any investment and that the most appropriate improvements are introduced in terms of their cost-effectiveness. If specific costs and benefits are not applied to crashes taking place then widely different criteria in the choice of measures, the assessment of projects and the allocation of resources will result. As a consequence there will be an imbalance in the ways in which funds available for safety projects are allocated and also an overall underinvestment in road safety. Road crashes were the leading cause of death in Thailand in 2000, accounting for almost 10% of that year’s deaths. The estimated years of life lost by Thais due to road crashes was about 600,000. Even if the conservative estimate 47

provided by the gross output method is used, losses due to road crashes are considerable. The loss is estimated to be of 115,932 million Baht, or approximately 2.13% of the GDP. The cost of car crashes in India in 1995 was estimated as 3.2% of the GDP. In France, the cost of road crashes is calculated using the gross output approach. Insurance companies are the primary source of data. In 2000 the total cost of crashes was estimated to be 25.42 billion Euros or 2% of the GDP. In 2000, in the United States the cost of road crashes was estimated as 230.6 billion US Dollars, accounting for 2.3% of the GDP. Since 1993, the UK has used the willingness-to-pay (WTP) method to evaluate the human cost of both fatal and non-fatal casualties. In 2005, a total cost of road crashes was estimated as 17.85 billion Pounds Sterling or 1.5% of the GDP. In 2008, in Germany the total cost of road crashes was estimated as 31 billion Euros (1.2% of the GDP). The detailed case studies on the cost of road crashes in the countries above can be found in Appendix 1.

48

The true cost of road crashes Valuing life and the cost of a serious injury The true cost of road crashes. Valuing life and the cost of a serious injury by Dahdah and McMahon provides a practical, useable approach for estimating the cost of a life or serious injury, which can be used by countries at all stages of economic development. The International Road Assessment Program (iRAP) will adopt the recommended approach set out in this paper in its work worldwide to create targeted programs of high return safety counter-measures where they will save the most lives for the available money. In order to evaluate the benefits of programs of engineering safety countermeasures through economic appraisal, the iRAP methodology needs to include a way of valuing the cost of a life and a serious injury. Experience in high-income countries has shown that empirical estimation of values for the prevention of injury requires considerable care in order to avoid bias, and usually costly survey methods. Since such empirical estimation for every country that iRAP works in would be impractical, the purpose of this paper is to explore whether values sufficiently robust for the purposes of iRAP can be derived by consideration of results from existing studies. This paper will: • Discuss the background to valuation of safety benefits; • Briefly review the main methodologies that are in use; 49

• Present recommendations for values for use in economic appraisal. www.irap.net

4. Derived effect of those costs In addition to physical, mental, and psychological trauma, crashes result in the destruction of both capital and labor capacity. Furthermore, as a result of crashes, substantial resources must be diverted to compensate for their negative effects, e.g., to buy new vehicles or pay for medical bills. Despite the devastating societal consequences, the very low statistical probability of a crash may be a disincentive for drivers (and their employers) to consider the degree of risk and potential cost of a crash in the decision making process.23 As shown in the report of cost estimates for the US, three-quarters of the costs were paid by individuals not involved in crashes. As Robert Solow points out, economic growth is directly dependent, in the long run, on the growth of the active population, all the other factors being equal24. As shown previously, road crashes take 1.2 million lives each year, most of them being young active men. As a result potential future growth is decreased. As far as human capital is

23 Wesemann, at the European Transport Ministers’ conference. P 56 of the report (International Transport Forum). 24 Robert Solow, « A contribution to the theory of economic growth », in The quarterly Journal of Economics, 1956.

50

concerned, endogenous factors of growth such as “learning by doing” or innovation potential are lost25. 5. Impact on deprived communities 5.1. Problems of the economics approach for deprived communities

Death or injury due to road crashes has a much wider socio-economic impact on low-income communities than on higher-income communities. Some of the following problems must be taken into consideration26: - Proper medical care may not be available, leading to more medical complications and higher levels of disability. Family members have to pay medical expenses, leading to a reallocation of labour resources within the family, in some cases dramatically decreasing their productivity. - Job security is much lower in developing countries; particularly in economically-disadvantaged communities, the victim may permanently lose their job. - In order to finance medical treatment or compensate for the lack of income some are forced to sell land, property or take loans. For instance, in Thailand, a study showed that 60% of

25 Arrow, Kenneth J. (1962) “The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing”, in Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 29:155-73, Romer, Paul M. (1986) “Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth”, in Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 94, no. 5: 1002-37. 26 Mohan, p. 9.

51

involuntary land sales were destined to finance health treatment for a family member27. - For other family members, decreased levels of health and education may result. None of the above phenomena are properly taken into account in a purely economic calculation of crash costs. Cost estimates for developing countries should therefore take these greater vulnerabilities into consideration. In more developed countries, the impact of these elements is much lower because the state provides transfer payments and social security, or because more families have private insurance that covers vehicles and medical costs. 5.2. Case study

A report published by Ross Silcock and the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) used data from case studies from Bangladesh and India to analyse the effect of road crashes on deprived communities28. The study showed, once again, that in developing countries children are much more at risk than those of developed countries. In Bangladesh, 24% of the casualties were children. Furthermore, women accounted for a small minority of death, just 18%. Vulnerable road users were the most affected by crashes, accounting for 65% of the fatalities. Interestingly enough, rural households were

27 UN/E/CN.9/1998/2. 28 “Guidelines for Estimating the Cost of Road Crashes in Developing Countries”, p. 27.

52

involved in three-quarters of the fatal crashes, but 30% of this proportion actually took place in urban areas. The Bangladesh case study shows that crashes have both short-term and long-term socio-economic effects on families. Among the low-income households, 32% of deaths occurred to the head of household or spouse against 21% for nonpoor, making a potentially big impact on the source of income. As far as the rest of the casualties, 44% of the killed were described as being the children of the head of household, many of those being young adults living with their parents. Parents, particularly in low-income households, lose part of the “inter-generational social security”; the death of their children before them will most probably considerably reduce their income when they reach retirement. More than 70% of low-income households said their income had decreased as well as their food consumption and food production, and 75% reported a decrease in their living standards. For non-poor families, these statistics were 57% and 59%, respectively. Further, 61% of the deprived families had to arrange for a loan to cope with a death of a member of the household, while only 34% of the non-poor had to do so. 35% of the low-income had to sell an asset against 21% for the non-poor. The case study from the city of Bangalore in India showed that “males in the prime of life were the most common road fatality and although they were not often the head of household, they did provide the majority of the household

53

income”.29 In low-income households, the cost of funeral, time spent recovering and looking for a new job were much more important than in non-poor households and new jobs often paid lower wages. The most striking result of the Indian and Bangladeshi case studies was that approximately half of the rural lowincome households were estimated to have not been poor before the crash! The report’s authors concluded that: “road crash is obviously hindering national and international efforts to reduce poverty significantly”. As it has been shown above, road crashes not only take a huge toll in human lives and injuries but also on a country’s economy. We know that developing countries have limited resources, which must be channeled toward the most efficient ways to achieve development and poverty reduction. The data provided by the studies presented shows that the economic impact is so important that it plays a major role in current and future development. A well aimed policy could also prevent many households from falling under the poverty line. Regardless of a country’s level of development, road crashes are preventable. As Elvik pointed out30 developed countries’ policies have proven that efficient measures can be taken to reduce crashes. In many OECD countries, such as France, the UK or Sweden, the number of road fatalities has been reduced by more than 50% since 1970.

29 Department for International Development, Ross Silcock, TRL Guidelines for Estimating the Cost of Road Crashes in Developing Countries, May 2003, (p. i). 30 Rune Elvik, The economics of road safety : investment pays, p. 1.

54

Executive summary It is clearly essential to estimate the cost of crashes to the overall economy at a country level. Such studies highlight the socio-economic burden of road crashes, which are considered to cost annually between 1% and 3% of the national GDP in developing countries. Death or injury due to road crashes has a much wider socio-economic impact on the poor than on the non-poor. Road crashes take a huge toll in human lives and on a country’s economy. Developing countries have limited resources, which must be channelled toward the most efficient ways to achieve development and poverty reduction. A well aimed road safety policy could prevent many households from falling under the poverty line. Six different methods have been identified to estimate the costs of road crashes, but most researchers and organizations prefer to use the “gross output” method in order to estimate the cost of road crashes in developing countries. This method would seem to provide the most balanced approach as it takes into account both the direct and indirect costs of crashes. To control the high economic costs due to road crashes, governments must evaluate the potential for substantial returns on investments to be made on road safety interventions. The Commission for Global Road Safety has recommended that 10% of overall investment in roads should be allocated to road safety. Road safety is a shared responsibility; therefore, in addition to governments, all those who gain from the movement of traffic and the 55

infrastructure thereof should be asked to consider investment of a small percentage of their profits in safety management. Road crashes have often been considered to be inevitable, but developed countries’ policies have proven that efficient measures can be taken to reduce crashes, fatalities, injuries and costs. In the USA, for instance, enforcement of seat belt and drink driving laws, coupled with safer vehicles, have contributed to a reduction in trafficrelated deaths from 55,000 in 1980 to 32,000 in 2010. In many OECD countries, such as France, the UK and Sweden, the number of road fatalities has been reduced by more than 50% since 1970. Developing countries need to initiate the process of preparing their national road safety plans through which guidelines and standards can be set dealing with all aspects of managing and improving infrastructure, enforcement, driver training, post crash management and safety awareness.

56

Chapter 2 Economic evaluation of road safety measures
Developed countries have already delivered huge reductions in road traffic injuries. Models and methods for evaluating the value and effectiveness of public policies, including road safety interventions, may also be applied to policies and interventions delivered in the business setting. 1. Evaluation methods Selection of public policies for road safety should be based on effectiveness and efficiency: effectiveness because there is no value in implementing a policy that does not reduce crashes or injuries, and efficiency because limited resources should be directed toward the activities that yield the highest social return. The two monetary methods used to measure these concepts are cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and cost-efficiency (CEA) analysis31.

31 This part of the report is mainly based on the presentation by Wesemann for the Dutch delegation at the European Conference of Ministers of Transport in 2000. When insufficient data are available, the following non-monetary methods can be applied. The overview table method, based on a matrix that provides a score for all the available alternatives on pre-selected criteria. The multi-criteria method allows

57

The two methods compare the effect of a public policy in comparison with either the current situation or “business as usual” situation under various criteria. The effects are defined as all the changes resulting from a project. They range from the expected effects on the situation that the policy seeks to solve to side effects which can be positive or negative. For instance in the case or road safety measures, a reduction in the authorized speed limit can have a positive side effect on the environment but also a negative side effect on the time of travel, generating economic costs for travellers. Particular attention must be set on avoiding double counting costs and benefits. Both cost and benefits have to be considered during the entire period studied. 1.1. The cost-benefit analysis

This approach is based on a balance sheet of costs and benefits, with consideration given to both the direct and indirect effects of the measure. Usually once the economic valuation has been discounted, a cost-benefit ratio is given to a particular project. The discount rate used in the economic analysis of investments is a key variable in applying the net present value or benefit-cost criteria for investment decision making. Such a discount rate is equally applicable to the economic evaluation, as distinct from a financial analysis, of both private as well as public investments. If the net present value of either type of project is negative when discounted by the economic cost of capital, the country would be better
accounting for multiple objectives within which multiple criteria can be considered.

58

off if the project were not implemented. Estimates of the value of this variable for a country should be derived from the empirical realities of the country in question. The results of such a discounting effort are only as good as the underlying data and projection made of the benefits and costs for the project. When various projects are competing for limited resources the one with the biggest benefit-cost ratio should generally be applied. If the question is whether to implement the project or not, the minimum criteria could be a ratio equal to one, i.e. costs equal the benefits. The main flaws of this method are that it is hard to evaluate precisely the effects or to monetize them, and that the further they are ahead in time the harder it is to link them to the project. 1.2. The cost-efficiency analysis

This approach can be used in two ways: cost minimization for a determined desired outcome, or effect maximization for a determined amount of resources invested. Unlike the previous approach, this method does not provide information on the social or economic profitability of a measure. If only one effect is intended then in an effect maximization analysis, the information sought is the cost per unit of the effect; for instance, a road safety policy analysis should seek to estimate the cost per life saved. The EU funded Thematic Network ROSEBUD (Road Safety and Environmental Benefit-Cost and Cost

59

Effectiveness Analysis for use in decision-making)32 shows a broad set of examples of measures (user, vehicle and infrastructure related measures) which were assessed on the basis of CBAs and CEAs. Many countries compile programs of road safety measures and targets for improving safety (e.g. percentage of fatalities to be saved in a certain year). The programs are based on a range of strategies and rarely on full ex-ante evaluations of the measures considered. CBAs and CEAs are most often used for setting priorities for safety measures within the framework of a national or local safety program.

Table 2: Possible scheme of a systematic evaluation of road safety activities, ROSEBUD

32 ROSEBUD, Deliverable WP5 Recommendations, 2007.

60

The assessment of road safety measures should take place throughout the course of a program, and should be applied across all programs. The application of CBAs and CEAs allows the result of systematic monitoring of road safety activities to be assessed. The evaluation of safety plans or programs requires the systematic recording of the activities and actions and the development of consistent accident and performance indicators with resources dedicated to data collection and analysis. After comparing road safety plans with the reality, decision makers have the chance to steer the activities in a new direction if necessary, and CBAs and CEAs should be the basis for these decisions. 2. Case Studies 2.1. The causes of crashes As Baum and Höhnscheid pointed out: “Road safety is three factors: men, vehicle and infrastructure33”. The table below shows that in Germany, the main cause of crashes involving personal injuries was human behavior. Public policies directed towards limiting these types of crashes have to consider the causes of crashes and the place where they take place in order to come up with the most efficient measure at the lowest price.

33 Baum, Herbert, Esser, Klaus, Höhnscheid, Karl, Volkswirtschaftliche Kosten und Nutzen des Verkehrs, 1998.

61

Table 3: Causes of crashes involving personal injuries in Germany (2009)34

34 DESTATIS (Statistisches Bundesamt, Fachreihe 8, reihe 7, Verkehrsunfälle, 2009).

62

2.2. Potential for reduction The following table shows the potential for reduction of crashes in Germany by road safety measures. Nevertheless, the table does not account for the cost of putting these measures in place. Table 4: Potential for reduction of traffic accidents

In their Handbook of Road Safety Measures, Elvik, Hoye, Vaa and Sorensen (2009) summarize current knowledge on 63

international road safety measures, including traffic control, vehicle inspection, driver training, publicity campaigns, police enforcement, post-accident care, DUI legislation and enforcement, environmental zones, speed cameras and general policy instruments. Effects of each measure on crashes, on mobility and the environment are analysed, and the costs of the measures and a cost-benefits analysis of it conclude each chapter. 2.3. Benefit-cost and cost-efficiency analyses Demonstrating a case for road safety investment is important in all economies but vital for developing economies where there are often such strong conflicting demands. The following table presents a Swiss cost-benefit analysis of some road safety measures. It shows that all those measures are profitable; for example, “random breathalysers without blood-test” have a cost-benefit ratio of 19, with a return of 227 million Swiss Francs on 12 million Francs spent. The table presented below shows a cost-effectivness analysis made by Tengs, Adams and Pliskin35 grouping 550 safety measures taken in the US. In addition to those shown in the table, a number of measures cost less than 100 US$ per life saved: - fitting windscreens with adhesive substance instead of rubber seals
35 Tengs TO, Adams ME, Pliskin JS, et al (June 1995). "Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness", Risk Anal.

64

- automatic driver safety belt; - compulsory wearing of seat-belts; - compulsory use of child-restraints; - compulsory use of motorcycle helmets; - further training for incompetent drivers.

Table 5: Cost-benefit results of traffic safety measures

Table 6: Cost-effectiveness analyses for different groups of measures 65

Tootill and Mackie36 analyzed 860 local road safety projects in the UK, which had an average cost of 27,000 Pounds Sterling. On average the value of crashes prevented was of 279% of the cost of the measure for the first year. Another study37 by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of the UK (DEFR), in 1997 estimated that

36 W. J. Tootill and A. M. Mackie (1995), “Transport Supplementary Grant for safety schemes – local authorities schemes from 1992/93 allocations”, TRL Report, p. 127, Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne. 37 Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1997). Road safety strategy: current problems and future options, DETR, London.

66

local programs had a first year rate of return of 150% on average. For example, in Cambridgeshire twelve traffic calming schemes saved 32 crashes per year or 2.1 million Pounds Sterling and cost 1.1 million Pounds Sterling. In 1989, a Scottish team established 550 measures to reduce the number of road crashes; they cost 16.9 million Pounds Sterling, but avoided 600 crashes per year that would have cost 38.8 million Pounds Sterling. The first year rate of return was therefore 229%. Table 7: Nairobi road safety investment program (iRAP, 2009)

Evidence from countries such as Norway, France, Canada shows that targeted road safety projects generated crash cost savings of up to 60 times the cost of construction (OECD, 2008). That is, for each 1 US Dollar invested, there was a

67

return of up to 60 US Dollars in terms of crash costs avoided38. A study by the Nairobi road safety investment program shows that improving pedestrian facilities at the cost of 3.5 million US Dollars a year for 20 years would prevent 10,300 deaths and serious injuries and bring a benefit of 246 million US Dollars39. For each invested US Dollar 70 would be generated in saving. The iRAP has completed a case study on the Safer Roads Investment Plan for Serbia.40 The following five measures were considered to be most the most efficient and profitable (on the basis of a twenty year analysis): - Adding 726 pedestrian crossings at the cost of 9 million US Dollars would prevent 1,457 deaths and serious injuries, bringing a benefit of 173 million US Dollars. For each invested dollar 19 would be generated in saving. Each death and serious injury saved would cost around 6,000 US Dollars. - Widening the shoulder over 686 km at the cost of 13 million US Dollars would prevent 1,292 deaths and serious injuries, bringing a benefit of 153 million US Dollars. For each invested US Dollar 12 would be generated in saving. Each death and serious injury saved would cost around 10,000 US Dollars

38 Safe Roads for Development, 2011, FIA Foundation, GRSP, gTKP, IRAP, IRF, WRA, World Bank. 39 iRAP, 2009. 40 Safer Roads Investment Plans: The iRAP Methodology.

68

- Calming traffic over 56 km at the cost of 2 million US Dollars would prevent 386 deaths and serious injuries, bringing a benefit of 46 million US Dollars. For each invested US Dollar 26 would be generated in saving. Each death and serious injury saved would cost around 4,000 US Dollars. - Regulating road side commercial activity over 115 km at the cost of 1 million US Dollars would prevent 160 deaths and serious injuries, bringing a benefit of 19 million US Dollars. For each invested US Dollar 13 would be generated in saving. Each death and serious injury saved would cost around 9,000 US Dollars - Removal of road side safety hazards over 38 km at the cost of 1 million US Dollars would prevent 48 deaths and serious injuries, bringing a benefit of 6 million US Dollars. For each invested dollar 7 would be generated in saving. Each death and serious injury saved would cost around 18,000 US Dollars. A case study for Serbia indicates that calming traffic over 56 km at the cost of 2 million US Dollars would prevent 386 deaths and serious injuries, bringing a benefit of 46 million US Dollars. For each invested dollar 26 would be generated in saving. Each death and serious injury saved would cost around 4,000 US Dollars. Investments in the field of road safety have proven to be very profitable to the point that the ADB has qualified them as “the most profitable investment in the transport sector”. In developing countries it is essential to quickly implement policies not only because the costs are equivalent to the entire sum given by multilateral and bilateral donors but also because the trend is very worrying. 69

As shown through these case studies, not only are road safety investments morally correct but they are also economically sound. Some of them have benefit to cost ratios as high as 19 and lives and serious injuries could be saved for as little as 100 US Dollars. Elvik pointed out that even in the safer countries: “there are still major opportunities for improving road safety”.

Executive Summary

There are various reasons why the government intervenes in the market for road traffic and road traffic safety. These are particularly related to attempts to allocate production resources more efficiently. Two methods are available for assessing the efficiency of measures, the Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) and the CostEffectiveness Analysis (CEA). There is little disagreement about their methodology and they are regularly applied in many areas of government policy. A CBA can be used to establish the social benefits of a package of traffic safety measures (or of an individual measure); whereas a CEA determines, amongst other things, how a fixed budget can be spent on measures in a way that maximizes safety effects. At the moment the efficiency question can only be answered in a limited way using the appropriate evaluation methods. Still it is recommended that decisions on the total road safety budget and the composition of packages of countermeasures be taken after an explicit comparison of 70

costs and effects. The theoretical model of CBA offers the best design to evaluate these decisions: a method to assess systematically the social advantages and disadvantages, and to process this information. The feasibility of the CBA will depend on the available data in each case and on the resources (time, manpower, money) provided for the research. The final choice always falls to those who bear the political or administrative responsibility for the decision being taken. The use of evaluation methods will provide information which supports the making and justification of decisions.

71

72

Chapter 3 Public sector responsibility
Governments need to understand that expenditure in road safety is an investment in the social and economic wellbeing of their citizens. It is not a cost. Case studies and examples from business and government show a massive return on investment from road safety initiatives. “Road crashes are predictable and thus preventable”, Mr. Wahid Al-Kharusi (Sultanate of Oman/Bone and Joint Decade Trauma and Rehabilitation Services Oman). 1. Action Plan for the Decade of Action for Road Safety: the 5 pillars approach The road traffic injury epidemic cannot be overcome by governments acting alone. For the world’s poorest countries, the challenge is to combine the expansion of a transport infrastructure that facilitates economic growth and generates employment with policies that reduce the number of deaths and injuries. While no country is too poor to act, the poorest countries need financial, technical and capacity-building support to act on the scale required. The UN Decade of Action provides an opportunity to put in place measures that could save 5 million lives and prevent 50 million serious injuries between 2011 and 2020. 73

The UN Road Safety Collaboration (UNRSC), in concert with the UN regional commissions, has developed the action plan for the Decade of Action for Road Safety. It is based on an international coordination, and had the objective of reducing road safety deaths working on five pillars. 1.1. Pillar 1: Road safety management

This pillar focuses on the need to strengthen institutional capacity to further national road safety efforts. It includes activities such as putting into practice major United Nations road safety conventions; establishing a lead agency for road safety in the country involving partners from a range of sectors; developing a national road safety strategy; and setting realistic and long-term targets for related activities with sufficient funding for their implementation. It also calls for development of data systems to monitor and evaluate activities. 1.2. Pillar 2: Safer roads and mobility This pillar highlights the need to improve the safety of road networks for the benefit of all road users, especially the most vulnerable: pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, children, and older citizens. Activities include improving the safety-conscious planning, design, construction and operation of roads; making sure that roads are regularly assessed for safety; and encouraging relevant authorities to consider all forms of transport and types of safe infrastructure when they respond to the mobility needs of road users.

74

1.3. Pillar 3: Safer vehicles This pillar addresses the need for improved vehicle safety by encouraging harmonization of relevant global standards and mechanisms to accelerate the uptake of new technologies which impact on safety. It includes activities such as implementing new car assessment programs so that consumers are aware of the safety performance of vehicles, and trying to ensure that all new motor vehicles are equipped with minimum safety features, such as seat belts. Other activities covered include promoting more widespread use of crash avoidance technologies with proven effectiveness, such as electronic stability control and anti-lock braking systems. Managers of fleets are also encouraged to purchase, operate and maintain vehicles that offer high levels of occupant protection. 1.4. Pillar 4: Road users behaviour This pillar focuses on developing comprehensive programs to improve road user behavior. Activities include encouraging the development and adoption of model road safety legislation and sustained or increased enforcement of road safety laws and standards. These efforts are combined with public awareness and education to increase seat belt and helmet wearing and to reduce drinking and driving, speeding and other risks. It also calls for activities to reduce workrelated road traffic injuries and promotes the establishment of graduated driver licensing programs for novice drivers.

75

1.5. Pillar 5: Post crash response This pillar promotes the improvement of health and other systems to provide appropriate emergency treatment and longer-term rehabilitation for crash victims. Activities include developing pre-hospital care systems, including implementation of a single nationwide telephone number for emergencies; providing early rehabilitation and support to injured patients and those bereaved by road traffic crashes; establishing insurance schemes to fund such initiatives; and encouraging a thorough investigation into crashes and an appropriate legal response. The overall goal of the Decade will be to stabilize and then reduce the forecast level of road traffic fatalities around the world by 2020. This will be attained through: • adhering to and fully implementing the major United Nations road safety related agreements and conventions, and use others as principles for promoting regional ones, as appropriate; • developing and implementing sustainable road safety strategies and programs; • setting an ambitious yet feasible target for reduction of road fatalities by 2020 by building on the existing frameworks of regional casualty targets; • strengthening the management infrastructure and capacity for technical implementation of road safety activities at the national, regional and global levels; • improving the quality of data collection at the national, regional and global levels;

76

• monitoring progress and performance on a number of predefined indicators at the national, regional and global levels; • encouraging increased funding to road safety and better use of existing resources, including through ensuring a road safety component within road infrastructure projects; • building capacities at national, regional and international level to address road safety. 2. Key aim for road safety: reducing motor vehicle dependence Cost management, carbon footprint reduction, risk management, business efficiency and effectiveness and time management are all issues that impact on business travel. Travelling to a face-to-face meeting may or may not be vital, but it is important that employers have assessed alternative forms of business mobility and communication. Historically, car travel has almost always been the preferred form of travel for ‘meetings’ with prospects, clients, suppliers, colleagues etc. But, the car may not always be the optimum option in terms of cost, time, reducing risk exposure or carbon-cutting, for example. This opinion is not about reducing business travel, although, clearly that may be possible. It can provide a thought-provoking basis from which public, private and voluntary sector organizations can look at just how effective – and sustainable – their existing mobility options are. It may be that radical changes to the way businesses operate and the apparent necessity for employees to commute are required to improve corporate efficiency.

77

Central to the business mobility decision-making process should be a desire by employers to reduce travel costs, reduce the carbon footprint of themselves and their employees and reduce the risk exposure of the organization and staff. That means for the majority of employers a radical overhaul of how work-related travel is presently conducted. Simultaneously, employers must ensure that both they and their employees have all the information available to make a clear decision on whether to travel by car, train or plane; whether to use a company car, their own vehicle or a hire; for short journeys whether to walk, cycle or use public transport; or alternatively whether car share, taxi or one of the many technology options such as video or teleconferencing are viable. The opportunities for employers to implement a diverse, multi-faceted, sustainable mobility plan and display corporate social responsibility have never been greater. But, it is not only vital to implement a business mobility policy - it is critical to fully communicate it to staff, thereby addressing the relevant issues relating to cost, safety and environmental matters set against whether the need for a journey is essential or if the objective can be achieved equally successfully using technology, while always being focused on ensuring optimum business efficiency41.

41 From A to B, The ACFO (The Premiere Organisation for Fleet Operators) guide to UK journey planning.

78

3. A shared approach to managing road safety Multilateral Development Banks 3.1. MDBs approach for developing countries Seven Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) issued in November 2009 a joint statement outlining a broad package of measures that each would implement in order to reduce an anticipated and alarming rise in the number of road fatalities and casualties in developing countries. See the details in Appendix 4. 3.2. Infrastructure safety investment The Commission for Global Road Safety (2008) has supported a World Bank-inspired proposal that all internationally funded road infrastructure projects in middleand low-income countries should include a minimum 10% road safety component, to ensure road safety is properly integrated into project design and implementation, and to enable safe management of new and rehabilitated roads42. This should include safety audit, public awareness and community action plans. The 5 pillars of action emphasize the shared responsibility for road safety. As national plans are being prepared, each department should prepare budgets and implementation plans to deliver actions in their areas of responsibility.

42 Safe Roads for Development, 2011, FIA Foundation, GRSP, gTKP, IRAP, IRF, WRA, World Bank.

79

See the World Bank’s Country Guidelines for the Conduct of Road Safety Management Capacity Reviews and the Specification of Lead Agency Reforms, Investment Strategies and Safe System Projects at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTTOPGLOROASAF/ Resources/traffic_injury_prevention.pdf 4. ADB approach for developing countries The Asian Development Bank (ADB), in their report titled “Road Safety Guidelines for the Asian and Pacific Region” developed the main steps that had to be taken to have efficient plans and programs to improve road safety. This plan, in contrast to the one of the UN Decade of Action, takes a stage-by-stage chronological approach. The two plans are complementary, with the Decade of Action plan providing an overall framework in the form of the five pillars, and the ADB plan providing the details for implementation in chronological order at regional level. The ADB plan is divided into the following three stages. 4.1. Raising awareness

Usually the main problems are the lack of awareness of the current situation, the lack of data, and the lack of clearly identified public and private sector actors. Therefore, the first step is to raise awareness by demonstrating that road safety is a growing and urgent problem, using data to illustrate the burden on society. The first step is to identify relevant actors and carry out an independent study reviewing the current situation (numbers, cost…), the agencies involved in road safety actions, and 80

availability of data to describe the problem and monitor progress. Once enough information is available, the ADB advises to gather a relatively small group of representative actors that would agree on the main actions to be taken to tackle the problem. Financing technical assistance can be done through multilateral donors or bilateral development agreements. 4.2. Priority action plans

At this point of development, principal actors have been identified and have started raising national awareness on the need to improve road safety through publicity campaigns or different types of initiatives. Improvement on the weaknesses found on the previous stages should already be seen. In this stage, the ADB recommends that the country develop a comprehensive strategy to limit crashes, target the most urgent actions that need to be taken and strengthen key organizations, systems and procedures so that local organizations can replicate those schemes at their level. It is important at this stage to begin implementation through pilot projects and to train individuals in key organizations. Full deployment of the action plan may take up to three years. International funds and development banks are generally willing to provide loans to support implementation of such action plans. They may also provide grants to improve the quality of road infrastructure, for example, finding and preventing black spots or improving pedestrian facilities.

81

4.3.

Five-year road safety programs

Stage three begins after the priority action plan has been implemented, a number of government and non-government organizations have become actively involved in road safety, infrastructures have been analyzed to find the dangerous places, and crash data have been collected and analysed. At this stage, the country develops a five year plan that should be seen as the extension of the prior activities. At that point, the government should have road safety investments in its budget; for instance, in Japan 0.6% of the GDP is devoted every year to foster road safety. The ADB insists that expenditure in road safety is an investment and not a cost, with the initial cost expected to lead to much greater savings. The ADB notes that resources necessary for the implementation of procedures, systems and practices range from 15 to 20 million US Dollars in a small country and from 50 to several hundred million US Dollars in big countries. It is essential for programs to be monitored and future measures must be ranked according to their efficiency. 5. A road safety policy analysis Elvik developed a clear approach to lead road safety policy analysis summarized in the figure below.

82

Table 8: Stages of a road safety policy analysis (based on Evik 2007)

83

The analysis called for during Stage 4 must include the number of years necessary to carry out the program, monetization of non-market goods such as private travel time or environmental factors, assessment of the financial resources available, and determination of the discount rate on which the cost-benefit analysis will be based. In Stage 5, some of the policy alternatives that could be proposed are “business-as-usual” (no change in policy), “maximum efficiency” (only cost-efficient measures are introduced and to the extent that they are cost-efficient) or “maximum potential” (the furthest the policy could improve road safety disregarding the expenditure limit). Stage 9 is critical; a systematic evaluation and monitoring of policies is essential. It is the only way to both correct currently applied policies and to provide a source of knowledge that will allow better policies in the future. Elvik’s analysis of road safety policy in Norway and Sweden showed that even amongst the two safest OECD countries, cost-efficient measures could still be applied to further improve road safety. 6. A methodological approach The European Transport Safety Council has developed a checklist to help decision makers and practitioners to assess assets and deficiencies of road safety policies and measures.43 Analysis shows that road safety performance varies significantly between the Member States of the European Union. In the 1990s, many countries set up road
43 ETSC: A methodological approach to transport safety policies, Brussels, 2006.

84

safety programmes, with their scope ranging from political lip-service to stringent catalogues of measures accompanied by numerical targets, financing and evaluation plans. Sound road safety programs together with quantified targets contribute positively to road safety performance. The checklist below presents a number of common prerequisites for successful road safety work. It is worth noting that most of the items in the checklist can also be applied to regional, municipal, or even corporate levels (replacing in this case, for instance, the “Head of Government” by the elected head of the relevant level of government or chair of the relevant corporation). The list is partly based on recommendations by the ECMT (Rumar, 2002), the WHO (Peden et al, 2004), the UNESCAP (1998), the World Bank (2004), the OECD (2002) and the ETSC (2003a, 2003b). The items considered in the checklist are: • Political support and commitment • Public and private sector awareness and involvement • Road safety legislation • Traffic safety vision or philosophy • Strategy • Performance targets • Public health approach • Systemic perspective • Road safety action plan • Scientific choice of measures • Institutional roles and responsibilities • Allocation of responsibility for countermeasures • Funding • Monitoring and evaluation 85

• Accident data • Safety performance indicators and exposure data • Research • Best practice exchange • Training • Enforcement • Emergency response The information of the enormous costs of traffic crashes has to be accompanied with solutions that countries can use for dealing with such a task. Capacity has to be built for basic areas in each country: safety agency, safety engineering, data collection and analysis, and safety enforcement. A group of experts that can support the country on implementing programs and projects lies at the heart of any initiative. Data analysis is very important to start prioritizing economic mechanisms as incentives for improving road safety. For example: - Data on traffic flow may be used to justify congestion pricing in urban areas or road-use taxes for vehicles used for commercial transport of freight or passengers. - Any road infrastructure project should only be financed if is accompanied by an independent road safety audit. - The cost-benefit analysis of a transport project should include road safety and public health indicators.

86

7. Case studies. A number of case studies are offered to show how local, national and international collaborative plans bring together the public and private sectors to deliver improved safety. In each case the private sector uses a business case to underpin its investment. 7.1. Bloomberg Philanthropies’ global road safety program On November 18, 2009, the eve of the Global Ministerial Conference, Bloomberg Philanthropies announced a contribution of 125 000 000 US Dollars– the largest single donation to global road safety to date – to six institutions including the WHO, the World Bank Global Road Safety Facility, the Global Road Safety Partnership, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, EMBARQ-World Resources Institute (WRI) Center for Sustainable Transport, and the Association for Safe International Road Travel (ASIRT), to implement 5-year projects in 10 countries. There have been a number of gains on the road safety front since the Bloomberg global road safety program was launched. These include: - New penalties for drinking and driving in Guadalajara. - Enforcement of seat-belt laws in Russia increased nearly tenfold from an average of 85 citations per week to 855 per week following a funded ad campaign. - Increased helmet use and decreased drunk driving in Cambodia. From October 2010 to February 2011 there was an 18% reduction in riders cited for not wearing a helmet 87

and a 60% reduction in drunk driving in Phnom Penh, Kandal, and Kampong Speu provinces. - Road safety audits completed on more than 280 miles of bus rapid transit routes serving more than four million people in Brazil, India, Mexico, and Turkey. Recommended improvements are expected to result in over 2,500 fewer serious injuries each year. - Over 1,800 public safety workers trained on effective enforcement of seat-belt, speed, and drunk driving laws in eight countries and nearly 200 breathalyzers distributed. - 100 officials trained on effective social marketing campaigns. The need for action is clear. Each year, 1.3 million people – 3,300 every day – are killed by road traffic crashes around the world and up to another 50 million suffer severe, often permanently debilitating, injuries. Road traffic injuries are projected to be the fifth leading cause of death globally by 2030. Bloomberg Philanthropies’ global road safety program invests in six proven interventions: - Motorcycle helmets: Helmet use decreases the risk of injuries by 69% and deaths by 42%. - Seat-belts: Seat-belt use reduces serious and fatal injuries by 40-65%. - Drunk driving prevention: lowering the legal blood alcohol limit can cut alcohol-related crashes in half; random breath testing reduces alcohol-related crashes by 20%. - Anti-speeding: Research on effective speed management indicates that speed limits on urban roads should not exceed 30 mph. If a pedestrian is hit by a car at 40 mph, there is a

88

70% chance they will die; at 30 mph, there is an 80% chance they will live. - Infrastructure: An estimated 1.7 million deaths and serious injuries can be avoided every year worldwide if economically viable engineering improvements are applied to the worst 10% of the roads in each country. - Sustainable urban transport: Improved urban transport leads to better air quality and significantly reduced carbon emissions. By reducing the number of vehicles on the road and increasing sustainable urban transport options, deaths and injuries from road traffic crashes can be averted. Bloomberg Philanthropies also invests in world-class monitoring and evaluation of traffic related deaths, injuries, and policy effectiveness. The first-ever World Health Organization Global Status Report on Road Safety, funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies, was released in 2009 and included data from 178 countries representing 98% of the world’s population. The status report serves as an important baseline for global progress. Data collection for the 2012 report is underway. Bloomberg Philanthropies’ global road safety program is focused in Brazil, Cambodia, China, Egypt, India, Kenya, Mexico, Russia, Turkey, and Vietnam. Six partner organizations implement and coordinate activities with incountry governmental and non-governmental organizations. The partners are the World Health Organization, EMBARQ (World Resources Institute), Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, the World Bank Global Road Safety Facility, Global Road Safety Partnership, and the Association for Safe International Road Travel. For more information: mikebloomberg.com

89

7.2. Latin New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) Latin America is a rapidly growing automobile market and source of vehicle production. It is also experiencing high levels of road fatalities and serious injuries. Latin NCAP is the first independent program to be established in one of the world’s newly motorizing regions and is a historic step forward in the availability of consumer crash test information. This program aimed at consumers focuses on the assessment and evaluation of the passenger safety aspects of new vehicles. It provides a realistic and independent assessment of the safety performance of some of the most popular cars sold in Latin America and the Caribbean. It has been launched following the successful introduction of consumer facing crash testing programs in the developed and developing markets. The FIA (Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile), FIA Foundation, ICRT (International Consumer Research and Testing) and GRMF (the Gonzalo Rodriguez Memorial Foundation) with support of the IDB (the Inter-American Development Bank), have joined forces to set up Latin NCAP. There are currently 6 other NCAP programs in the world: US NCAP, Euro NCAP, Japan NCAP, Korean NCAP (South Korea), China NCAP and Australasian NCAP. There is also the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) with its crash test program similar to Euro NCAP. For more information: latinncap.com

90

7.3. Road Safety in Nigeria The Federal Road Safety Commission (FRSC) is charged with responsibilities for policymaking, organization and administration of road safety in Nigeria. Key to its operational success is its corps of marshals operating a threetier system. The strategy of FRSC is to work in partnership with business and the community to reduce crashes and create a safe motoring environment in Nigeria. Its mission is to regulate, enforce and coordinate all road traffic and safety management activities through sustained public enlightenment, effective patrol operations, prompt rescue services, improved vehicle administration, robust data management and promotion of stakeholder cooperation. Consistent with the Accra Declaration goal of reducing road traffic fatalities by 50% by 2015 (using 2007 data as a baseline), Nigeria has set ambitious targets for improving road safety. Nigeria expects to meet these targets by increasing the use of seat belts and helmets, promoting safer road infrastructure and protecting vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists. Between 2009 and 2010 alone, road crashes decreased by 51%, injuries decreased by 34% and deaths decreased by 29%. 7.51% of the State’s total budget was invested on roads in 2009. Overall, the activity of the FRSC resulted in dramatic reduction in deaths from road traffic crashes, from 25,792 in 1988 to 4,066 in 2010. The goal is to reduce that figure to 1,731 in 2015, far exceeding the level needed to achieve Accra Declaration targets (2,336 deaths). For more information: frsc.gov.ng; FRSC (2011); Federal Road Safety Corps 2010 Annual Report.

91

7.4. Road Safety in Argentina Argentina has one of the highest road mortality rates of Latin America with 27 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants according to the Mercosur Road Safety Report. In 2008 alone, there were close to 98,000 serious road crashes, in which more than 7,500 people died. The high crash rate led to the creation of the National Road Safety Agency (ANSV) in April 2008 by the Ministry of Interior. The agency aims to halve the road fatalities rate in four years through a combination of awareness-raising, stricter legal repercussions and increased police controls, backed up by community and business support. Efforts are mostly focused on enforcing speed limits, increasing seat belt and helmet use, reducing drink-driving and preventing drivers from using mobile phones. The achievement of the Agency is the decrease in the total amount of crashes about 12% between 2008 and 2010. Between 2008 and 2010 the number of road crashes per 100,000 vehicles decreased by 19.34%, road deaths per 100,000 inhabitants decreased by 6.47%. For more information: seguridadvial.gov.ar. 7.5. Africa regional trade corridor road safety. World Bank and Total initiative This project results from the joint TOTAL-World Bank Initiative for regional corridor road safety in Africa, where TOTAL, the local market leader of petroleum products distribution, generates 50 million kilometers of road travel annually. Transportation costs are 80% higher than in 92

Europe, and road safety is a development as well as a poverty issue: its cost is larger than the sum of all development aid for infrastructure, and a casualty is frequently the cause of catastrophic impoverishment in a household. Road casualties affect disproportionately the poor, the young and economically active, and passengers in mass transportation. Although poor ownership synergy and continuity prevent effective results, some countries are showing the way and regional institutions are in place. Road safety activities often ignore the Best Practice System Approach. The most important condition for success, i.e. a national lead Road Safety Agency truly empowered, sustainably funded and effectively responsible for results, is lacking everywhere. Some countries such as Ghana recently started to implement state of the art road safety policies, with initial results. Under the Africa Union, UNECA sometimes includes relevant road safety input to the economic integration work done through the five Regional Economic Communities (RECs). Three policy decisions provide the mandate and framework to the Initiative. (1) The NEPAD focuses the continent’s strategy on twenty main international transit corridors as entry point to trade development, local and regional economic integration, and growth; (2) The 2007 Accra Declaration by the African ministers of transport and health resolved to halve the number of road accident fatalities in Sub Saharan Africa by 2015; (3) The UN General Assembly launched a 2011-2020 Decade of Action for Road Safety. The Initiative uses a joint road safety team to promote the alignment of development partners’ activities with road safety norms, in sequence, along the 20 NEPAD corridors, 93

starting with the Northern Corridor, in the Kenya-Uganda segment, and then the Central Corridor linking Cameroon, Chad and CAR. An informal Road Safety Group consisting of a high level representative from government and corridor institutions, contributors to the Initiative, TOTAL, GRSF and the World Bank provide oversight. The Initiative is expected to leverage substantial ODA and help to secure sustainable local funding for road safety. It brings the private sector leadership that effectively complements WB approach for success. Initial response is vibrant. 7.6. Benefiting Brazilian mass transit ridership’s with a safer system The time for sustainable transport in Brazilian cities is now. The opportunity to leverage upcoming Mega Events and unprecedented federal investment in urban transportation simply cannot be wasted. The 2014 World Cup, 2016 Summer Olympics, and Federal Program for Accelerating Growth (PAC) will leave a legacy that will determine the future of Brazil’s cities long after the last sports fans have left the country. In 2009, the Federal government launched PAC providing 6.6 billion US Dollars of federal financing for urban mobility in host cities for the World Cup and Olympics, followed by a second round of 12 billion US Dollars. International attention combined with federal financial support gives powerful momentum to urban transport projects while the Mega Events provide a measurable deadline for inauguration. This work will improve critical

94

infrastructure, providing safer and more equitable public spaces and greater access to high-quality public transport. As in many places around the world, traffic fatalities in Brazil are rising. In 2010, the costs of 37,000 deaths nationwide represented around 1.2% of GDP. The costs of crashes in urban areas alone are estimated to be around 3.3 billion US Dollars annually. For every death, another ten people are injured. Pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists are the most vulnerable road users. Low quality and low performance bus mass transit are contributing to modal change from buses to motorcycles, especially among young men. Pedestrian and bike infrastructures are lacking attention from the public sector. Most of the attention for road safety has concentrated on education and enforcement, with less attention given to safer infrastructure. Most of the actions in road safety in Brazil are related to reactive responses to the crashes, few proactive measures are addressed to avoid death and injuries. EMBARQ Brasil, with support from Bloomberg Philanthropies, has been conducting road safety audits to improve the safety of new mass transit projects. The road safety audit is one of the more cost-effective measures to improve safety, since it suggests upgrades in the design phase of a project, rather than intervening after construction. Studies report that an audit costs less than 1% of the total cost of a project and has a benefit-cost ratio of 10:1. EMBARQ Brasil with support from Bloomberg Philanthropies conducted audits on seven Bus Rapid Transit corridors in Rio de Janeiro, Curitiba and Belo Horizonte. Around 100 km have been audited and more than 1,820k passengers per day will benefit from a safer bus system and road infrastructure. The case of the BRT Transcarioca in Rio 95

de Janeiro is a great example of the benefits of a road safety audit. The cost of the crashes in this section was estimated to be around 12.5 million US Dollars per year, according to data from IPEA (Institute for Economic and Practice Research) for valuing the cost of crashes in Brazilian urban areas. Given a projected 30% reduction in crashes, the audit performed in the BRT Transcarioca project has the potential to avoid 830 crashes and 170 injuries per year, representing 3.75 million US Dollars saved. 7.7. Micro Computer Accident Analysis package (MAAP) in Botswana Data from reports on crashes and casualties are widely acknowledged as being critical to formulating successful efforts to improve road safety. However, in low and middle income countries really effective use of crash data is not widespread. The lack of good quality data, user-friendly analysis tools and analysis know-how makes it very difficult for road safety practitioners to identify specific problems and to come up with effective, value-for-money solutions. TRL has been involved in efforts to improve crash data collection for more than three decades, and has developed a simple crash report form with a series of short (mostly coded) questions, which is adaptable for local conditions that police personnel can complete quickly alongside their longer case reports. The MAAP (Micro Computer Accident Analysis package) software was also developed by TRL to make computerized storage and analysis of the data more widely available to a wide range of stakeholders.

96

Botswana Traffic Police have maintained a version of TRL’s MAAP crash database system since 1987. Botswana was the second country to adopt MAAP as a national recording system and their live data goes back to 1994. They currently have over 250,000 records in their main database. Being a Middle-Income Country (MIC), Botswana actually has a worse road safety problem than similar poorer countries in Sub Saharan Africa. MICs tend to have dangerous vehicles, poor infrastructure and low driving standards but rapidly rising vehicle ownership. This situation has led to very significant increases in the number of slight and damage road crashes, whilst deaths and serious injuries have not been declining significantly. Botswana also has other significant health issues notably with HIV/Aids, and a heavy drinking culture which also impacts on road safety. These issues, amongst others, compete for very limited public funds. The types of crashes occurring are clearly changing over time as Botswana develops economically. As the population becomes more affluent, particularly in the capital, Gaborone, the number of cars has increased significantly and there has been a corresponding increase in their involvement in crashes. The success with maintaining the MAAP system continuously over many years can be attributed to Botswana Police having a dedicated core team of officers who are responsible for entering the data and also for checking the data quality. Botswana Traffic Police also have senior staff who understand the importance of the information and take an active and supportive interest in the system. Assistant Superintendent Sedodoma has over-seen the system directly for many years which has given continuity and leadership. 97

Data collection is undertaken conscientiously and data entry staff have established processes to ensure that all reported records are captured, together with systems for actively checking missing or incorrect data with the officer who initially collected it. Traffic Police have worked closely with the Department of Road and Transport Safety (DRTS) and jointly produce an annual report on crashes and casualty patterns and trends. This analysis of the data has been crucial in informing and guiding media publicity campaigns and also to target the police enforcement efforts more effectively. The data are also used to monitor the road safety situation in Botswana nationally. The headline figures for crashes are also listed on the website of the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund together with population and vehicle figures so injury rates and risk can be derived. The crash data have also been used by staff in the Department of Environmental Science, University of Botswana, to assess the safety impact of upgrading highways in the Western region. Their investigation indicated that contrary to the common perception locally that upgrading roads will lead to improved road safety; the opposite effect can actually be experienced due to increased speeds. For more information: up.ac.za/dspace/bitstream/2263/6330/1/022.pdf. Crash data on the MVAF website: mvafund.bw/accidentstatistics.html. However there is considerably more that could be done by a range of official stakeholder organizations to make use of this resource to improve road safety significantly in Botswana. The current upgrading of MAAP, on-going at 98

present financed by DRTS, has already produced a number of improvements to the over-all system and especially to data quality. The Benefits of upgrading MAAP include: - The introduction of modern digital/GIS mapping for the whole country which is allowing police staff to give crashes accurate map coordinate locations nationally; - The new version of MAAP is increasing the ease and potential of making the crash data available more widely amongst stakeholders such as DRTS personnel; for example medical staff and engineers will be able to access the information more easily in future; - The use of the data for road engineers since crashes now have map coordinates allowing evaluation of measures from particular sites on the road network. An assessment of the feasibility of linking the system to others databases such as the vehicle licensing records, medical records and the national identification register is also being undertaken. Currently this system is almost certainly the most successful in Sub-Saharan Africa, and possibly the most successful in all of Africa.

Executive Summary Roads are generally publicly-owned assets, managed and controlled by central or local government. Although the roads are mainly used by private individuals and businesses, traditionally, road safety has been seen as a responsibility of government, linked to their ownership of the infrastructure. 99

This traditional view is changing however and the understanding that collaboration in road safety issue is a win-win business case both for public and private sectors is now strengthening. The UN General Assembly proclaimed 2011-2020 the Decade of Action for Road Safety, with a global goal of stabilizing and then reducing the forecasted level of global road fatalities by increasing activities conducted at national, regional and global levels. The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon called on Member States, international agencies, civil society organizations, businesses and community leaders to ensure that the Decade leads to real improvements. As a step in this direction, a number of governments have released their national plans for the Decade at the official global launch of the Decade on 11 May 2011. A systematic, multisectoral response is required to address this global crisis, including interventions to improve the safety of road infrastructure, vehicles, road users behavior and post-crash response. Roads are an essential component of modern mobility planning. Funding and resources allocation is the best possible indicator of a country’s aspiration to achieve a reduction of road deaths. The recommendations are that a well-defined amount of road spending is devoted to road safety, that national targets for improving road safety are set and that data systems for monitoring progress toward those targets be developed and maintained. It is important to send a message to all stakeholders that expenditure in road safety is an investment and not a cost, with the initial cost resulting in much greater savings in the future. Road safety activities are highly cost-effective

100

and provide a higher rate of return than any other investment in transport. However, it is essential that programs be monitored and that future measures be selected based on what is already known about their efficiency. Above all it must be understood that the inherent safety and protective quality of road networks is for the benefit of all road users, including the most vulnerable (e.g. pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, children, and older citizens).

101

Chapter 4 The private sector involvement
For businesses, the human cost of crashes is very high: around 30% of crashes are work related, and the private sector has recognized the need to invest in road safety. One of the constraints of businesses is to maximize profitability with limited resources, while at the same planting the seeds for their future growth. Hence investments by private actors have to bring a yield. The human cost of road accidents on businesses is very high. Around 20% to 35% of road crashes are work related (be it driving to and from work or driving on a business activity). A study in France from 200644 showed that 22% of road crashes were work related. Crashes driving within a professional mission led to 21,806 crashes of which 2,569 led to permanent disability and 116 deaths. They accounted for 1,526,786 lost days of work. There were 555,032 crashes of people commuting to work, leading to 6,414 permanent disabilities and 338 deaths accounting for 3,558,462 lost days of work. As presented in the 2010 Challenge Bibendum “White paper for safer roads: Achieving zero work-related road
44 Caisse nationale de l’assurance maladie des travailleurs salariés (CNAMTS) - The French National Health Insurance Fund for Salaried Worker, 2006

103

deaths”45, worldwide, work-related deaths account for onethird of the overall crash fatalities in most countries for which these data are available. In this regard, the private sector as a whole has a responsibility to prevent them. Given the magnitude of work-related road deaths and crashes only a well coordinated action between the private and the public sector will lead to meaningful reductions in road mortality. The cost data presented below show that reducing workrelated road mortality has economic benefits for society as a whole and businesses themselves. Work-related crashes lead to various types of costs as pointed out by the “Driving for work: The business case” study by the British Department for Transport (DfT): - Insurance premiums and social contribution (in the case of France they are paid to the Caisse régionale d'assurance maladie); -The cost of replacing lost or damaged assets; - Loss in staff time at work; - Loss of time in staff re-organization, and production disruptions; - Labor productivity and morale; - Loss of clients; - Loss of brand reputation; - Potential legal suits; - Administrative costs.

45

White paper for safer roads: Achieving zero work-related road deaths can be found at http://www.michelinchallengebibendum.com/

104

Will Murray made a model to estimate the cost of collision for a company46. It includes the cost of own material damage, third party vehicle cost damage and the cost of third party injury. He proposes to multiply that amount by 2 in order to account for the hidden costs. With that number, he takes the margin of an organization on a symbolic product they sell and estimates the amount of units of that product that would have to be sold in order to cover for the losses linked to motor vehicle crashes. In a 1997 publication on the costs of all types of accidents at work47 the HSE estimated that for each Pound Sterling paid by insurance claims, a company actually paid between 8 and 36 Pounds Sterling for uncovered costs. In 2001, the HSE48 estimated that in the UK, 30% of all traffic deaths involved someone at-work. Using DfT49 Road Accident Great Britain data from 1999 on vehicle user and pedestrian casualty by type of vehicle involved, HSE differentiated the involvement of ‘at-work’ vehicles by severity and vehicle type. Using a WTP approach, the cost of work-related road accidents to society was estimated to be 4.4 billion Pounds Sterling in 1999; for employers the costs was estimated to be approximately 2.7 billion pounds Sterling per annum in 1999. The report suggested that major
46 Murray, “W Fleet First: What does it take to get SHEM practitioners interested in road safety: making the business case?”, Safety & Health Practitioner, Volume 27, Number 5, www.shponline.co.uk, May 2009, pp. 78-80. 47 HSE (1997). 48 HSE (2001). 49 DfT (1999)

105

improvement could be achieved with very simple fleet management systems that address the contributory factors of work-related road accidents, including insufficient driver competence (potential cost saving to society from prevention of these accidents of approx. 2.5 billion Pounds Sterling), fatigue (potential cost saving 750 million Pounds Sterling pa), vehicle selection and maintenance (potential cost saving 275 million Pounds Sterling pa) and effects of alcohol and drugs (potential cost saving 55 million Pounds Sterling pa). Between 1990 and 1991 the HSE undertook a series of five case studies in Britain to ascertain the true costs of preventable accidents at work, covering five different areas of employment. These studies found that uninsured costs of crashes far exceeded insure costs. One of the case studies included a transport company with 80 employees which operated a fleet of 65 milk tanks and 80 refrigerated vehicles in the UK. In total, 296 accidents resulted in financial losses of 16,215 Pounds Sterling and indirect costs of an additional 32,713 Pounds Sterling. The total cost of the accidents recorded was 48,928 Pounds Sterling which represented 37% of the annual profit and 1.8% of operating costs. Uninsured costs were found to be eight times higher than insurance premiums paid for the period under scrutiny. In some countries, including the United States, health insurance provided by businesses compensates workers for motor vehicle crashes involving workers and their dependents. These crashes may occur on or off the job. Businesses also pay for harm caused to third parties as a result of motor vehicle crashes that occur while a worker is driving for work purposes. A U.S. study using data from 1998-2000 estimated that motor vehicle crash injuries occurring on and off the job cost employers nearly 60 billion 106

US Dollars annually. This study divided costs to business into three categories: - Health fringe benefit costs: Contributions by businesses to workers’ compensation insurance, health insurance, disability insurance (Social Security and private), life insurance, and administrative costs; - Non-fringe costs: Contributions by businesses for insurance against motor vehicle property damage and liability, crashrelated legal expenses, costs of vehicle damage and replacement that are not otherwise reimbursed, and costs of replacing or re-training injured workers; - Wage-risk premiums: Inflated wages that implicitly consider the elevated risk of injury associated with a certain type of work (in other words, “payment in advance for possible future losses caused by injury”)50. The table below shows average costs to business for various categories of fatal and nonfatal crashes and injuries occurring on the job. On average, each fatality cost a business over 500,000 US Dollars in direct and liability costs, and each non-fatal injury cost nearly 74,000 US Dollars. The same study also assessed costs to employers due to alcohol use and non-use of safety belts. For on-the-job crashes, the cost to businesses of non-use of safety belts was estimated to be over 2 billion US Dollars annually. The cost to businesses of alcohol-involved crashes was estimated to be over 3 billion US Dollars annually (NHTSA 2003, pp. 78).
50 NHTSA 2003, p. 4.

107

A case study by Stewart and Townsend showed that the internal rate of return of a loss control approach (limiting road crashes’ cost) is of 7%. As a result of increased safety, productivity had also gone up by 11%. Table 9: Costs to Employers per Million Vehicle Miles of Travel (M VMT) and Costs per On-the-Job Highway Crash and Injury, 1998-2000

In businesses as well as at the country level, road crashes constitute a very important capital drain. Improvement in overall road safety statistics at country level will clearly benefit companies, but improvement in fleet management by companies will also reduce the cost of crashes at country level. For that reason, businesses, government, NGOs and other interested parties need to work hand in hand to coordinate road safety policies. The above mentioned white paper from Challenge Bibendum 2010, as well as the 2003 NHTSA study from the US, clearly demonstrate that there is a business case for road safety actions within companies.

108

The Business Case for managing Work-Related Road Safety When managed in a proactive way, there is a clear link between safety, quality, customer service, efficiency and the environment. This can be reflected in many ways, including improved fuel efficiency, reduced asset damage, reduced vehicle downtime plus wear and tear. Work-related road safety is a core activity for most organizations which cannot be isolated from the business overall. Safe driving by employees enhances opportunities for marketing, business development, corporate social responsibility, staff wellbeing, brand enhancement and brand protection. At the most simple level, it is much better for an organization to be promoting a ‘good news’ safety story such as winning an award, than it is to have to react to and suppress the outcomes of a major incident. A proactive road risk program can also keep organizations ahead of and protected from regulations and legal requirements. Effectively, proactive organizations can help to shape and lead forthcoming safety regulations, and gain a competitive advantage by being ahead of more reactive organizations. Particularly in the current climate of downturn, recession, rationalization, downsizing and the limited availability of capital, maintaining safety in a cost effective way is particularly important. Because of significant increases in insurance costs, ambulance chasing and personal injury costs in recent years, the financial implications of work-related road safety can be massive. Industry research shows that typically workplace

109

injury costs are met 40% by the employee, 30% by the employer and 30% by the community as a whole. For more information:.fleetsafe.org/businesscase.aspx 1. Delivering a business message to business51 Successful engagement with business on road safety requires a clear, simple message that is not based heavily on theory but on actual practice. Business can understand and relate to this much better as it talks their language, and the methods and outcomes cannot be disputed. It is not about delivering only a safety message, but about delivering a business message: “If you manage your vehicles and drivers effectively you will see operational and financial benefits, as well as improvements in safety and environmental performance.” This is a win-win approach. There is no competitive advantage to managing road safety, so companies are generally willing to share and learn from each other. A business-to-business dialogue helps to reinforce the message, as there is mutual trust and understanding of the pressures and practical difficulties of managing road safety effectively. There is understanding of the internal barriers to overcome to get the message heard at top management level, and the internal and external factors that can impact success. Managing road safety within a business is not really a complex technical subject – there is
51 The word ‘business” here and throughout this document means all organization types irrespective of ownership, whether in the private, public or NGO sectors. Government agencies and NGOs working in road safety should lead by examples in their own practice at all times.

110

an abundance of reference material available, but actually implementing it in practice is a lot more difficult and requires a range of skills and attributes. Hearing from companies that have actually tackled this and been successful therefore provides other companies with the confidence and the motivation to tackle it themselves. 2. Corporate responsibility The corporate responsibility agenda is becoming more and more visible and is often used to evaluate and differentiate between businesses and industry sectors. An increasing number of corporate businesses are choosing to, or are required to, produce an annual report and publish their achievements on a range of subjects including safety and environmental performance. Corporate responsibility can be used to ‘sell’ the idea of effective road safety management to business and encourage them to get involved not only in internal road safety programs but also to support national/global programs and multi-sectoral partnerships and campaigns. Corporate responsibility (incorporating road safety) is evolving into an intrinsic part of a company’s business model, an investment that creates competitive advantage and helps to achieve sustainable growth. 3. Supply chain Responsibility within the supply chain is also a key part of the corporate responsibility agenda, and is a very effective way of spreading the road safety message to a wider audience and improving standards across an industry sector. 111

Business must engage with its road transport contractors and sub-contractors to clearly explain expectations and the standards that it expects them to meet. The message to contractors and sub-contractors should be that if they want to be preferred suppliers, they must demonstrate that they meet certain safety standards. 4. Practical ideas/suggestions Potential ideas or messages that could be used to encourage organizations to take a more proactive approach to tackling internal or external road safety issues could be the following: - Benchmark against peers – provides the motivation to address the subject and also the reassurance that positive results can be achieved. - Integrate into corporate responsibility strategy as a socially responsible employer - you are part of the problem so you need to be part of the solution. - Conduct gap analysis against a reference standard to ascertain “Where are we now?”, “Where do we want to be?” and “How will we get there?” - Discuss with insurance companies about the potential savings in insurance premiums if a risk-based approach to managing road safety is developed and implemented. Some insurance companies (e.g. Zurich) are already very active in this area and see the business benefits for themselves in helping their clients to improve road safety performance. - Use vehicle leasing companies to promote and spread the message – some leasing companies are active in this area and

112

see the business benefits for themselves in helping their clients to improve road safety performance. - Biggest single risk for most employees within any organization is driving (to/from work or at work). This even applies to traditional high risk industries such as petrochemical, oil/gas and cement, but is often not clearly understood or appreciated by many companies as it is considered to be outside their direct control or influence. - Link safety performance with environmental performance and fuel efficiency, which can lead to significant savings with the current high cost of fuel. - Effective journey planning and journey management leads to improved operational performance, as well as reducing road safety risks. - Supporting national or global road safety programs help to influence those factors that are outside of your direct control i.e. road infrastructure and design, other road users. - Corporate image and reputation - positive effects of good performance on brand image, or negative effects of company vehicles being involved in road crashes. - Road safety charters/pledges to be signed by contractors engaged in road transport activities – gets their buy-in and motivation. Companies should use teleconferencing and videoconferencing as an alternative to business travel as a strategy to reduce costs, improve safety, and achieve environmental benefits. - Companies can encourage their workers to make their daily commutes by mass/public transport. - Companies can either provide mass transport or work with local authorities for supporting/improving public transport.

113

- Evaluate active transportation, such as biking and walking as part of the options for employees to commuting to work. Create facilities and incentives to promote active transportation. - Companies can create rewards programs for creative solutions that improve employees’ safety. - Measure results of programs. 5. The business case for action within the business Work-related traffic composes a significant portion of total vehicular traffic. Businesses that pay attention to the quality of road safety in their operations get better results than those that do not. Promoting road safety is sound business practice for private companies. Established in 2007 with support from the UK Department for Transport, Driving for Better Business (DfBB) is a mature campaign which could be delivered in any country, any sector or across many sectors. DfBB raises awareness of the importance of work related road safety in the business community and public sector by using advocates drawn from these communities to promote the business benefits of managing it effectively. Its core message is that good management reduces cost, improves working conditions, is good for the environment and that it improves safety. The program is delivered through case studies - Not ‘how you should do it’ but rather ‘how we (i.e., the business) have done it’. These case studies are used in promotional literature, for business events and other publicity. A major lesson of the DfBB program so far has been that, while there is interest in and support for the program, it also 114

takes significant effort to engage the larger, better- known firms to become business champions. Their business networks, particularly where they have other firms providing contractor or sub-contractor support, are critical to the successful dissemination of the core message. Building on the network of some 10,000 businesses and individuals developed by DfBB in 2007–2008, the main effort for the program is to engage business rather than deliver solutions. Once the message is on the board table – results happen quickly. 6. Description of case studies Description of the Arval Case Study and website link to the detailed information see in Appendix 5. Case study “Michelin’s Road Safety Commitments” see in Appendix 6. An overview of Michelin’s road safety commitments to its employees, as well as at the international level and in form of partnerships with governments, local authorities and civil society. Description of the The Network of Employers for Traffic Safety (NETS) and website link to the detailed information see in Appendix 7. Description of the “Praising Best Practice in Road Safety ‘At’ Work and ‘To’ Work” (PRAISE) and website link to the detailed information see in Appendix 8. Case study on Road Safety Management at RENAULT see in Appendix 9. In this case study you will learn about 115

the 5 pillars of road safety at Renault and find a particular business case study of fleet safety management measures “Renault Ile de France”. Case study on Road Safety in Shell see in Appendix 10. Shell is making good progress at addressing road safety through their company-wide road safety standards and proactive driver safety programs. They work closely with partnerships to help set industry standards and bring together skills and resources. Case study “Driving for Better Business – Champion Case Study – TNT EXPRESS” see in Appendix 11. This is a comprehensive study highlighting the work-related road safety policy and procedures in TNT Express, work related road safety guidance for drivers, specific examples of procedures, auditing and review and current and future developments in this area. Case study on Staff Road Safety at World Bank Group see in Appendix 12. This is a detailed review of the Bank Group’s global Staff Road Safety policy, which aims to assist staff in mitigating road safety risks faced in the course of their work by setting standards and rules for vehicles, drivers and passengers in WBG offices worldwide. Work-related road safety as a conduit for community road safety by Murray, Will & Watson, Barry (2010) Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety, 21(2), pp. 65-71. This study which aims to review the potential of work-related road safety as a conduit for community road safety based on research and practical experience can also be

116

found at http://www.acrs.org.au/srcfiles/ACRS-212Web.pdf. Case study “Driving for Better Business – Champion Case Study – Johnson & Johnson” see at http://www.drivingforbetterbusiness.com/casestudies/jan dj.aspx. Another Champion Case Study, highlighting the work related road safety policy and procedures in Johnson & Johnson, work related road safety guidance for drivers, specific examples of procedures, auditing and review and current and future developments in this area. Case study “Driving for Better Business - City of York Council” see at: drivingforbetterbusiness.com/casestudies/york.aspx

Executive summary The human and economic costs of motor vehicle crashes for businesses are very high. In most countries, 20 to 35% of the crashes are work related crashes (be it driving to and from work or driving in the framework of professional mission). In addition, corporate reputation and brand image are increasingly important and poor road safety performance can be very detrimental and used to challenge a company’s CR credentials. Unfortunately, many businesses are not aware of the direct and indirect costs they absorb as a result of crashes. The decentralized nature of many businesses does not lend itself to the aggregation of costs at a senior management level. Thus, many businesses are not aware of the significant costs 117

associated with traffic crashes, and continue to view workrelated crashes as an unavoidable cost of operating a business. There is a need for continued work to raise awareness of risk prevention methods. To engage with business on road safety we need to deliver a clear, simple message to business that is based on actual practice. Good business practice improves efficiency and reduces risk from crashes, and there is a need for businesses to take this message to other businesses. A business must start with an understanding of its own road safety performance, followed by policies and practices focused on improving the driving behaviors of its own employees and the contractors they work with. The next step calls for businesses to reach-out to the communities where they operate and fund road safety programs. Momentum is advanced when business join together to encourage the public sector at local, regional and national levels to support—legislatively, for instance—road safety measures. Case studies of best practices suggest that improvements in work-related road safety performance are associated with the following factors: - Top management commitment and leadership; - Stakeholder involvement; - Clear plan with realistic timelines and responsibilities; - Allocation of appropriate budgets and resources; - Effective communication; - Expertise to support business; - Monitoring of performance and top management review; - Shared learning and experience; - Continual focus; - Engagement in societal road safety programs. 118

In addition to managing risk for employees and contractors, many companies are actively engaged in advocacy and communication activities to raise general awareness and spur political action. Private companies’ political influence is commensurate with their financial standing in the national economy. Companies can, and should, use this influence to demonstrate leadership in the area of road safety as they do in technology and other areas. They are a driving force in influencing policymakers to take decisive actions to improve road safety. The private sector as a whole has a responsibility to its workers, shareholders, and the larger society to prevent work-related road traffic crashes. Because work-related crashes are a large component of the total burden of crashes in many countries, well coordinated action between the private and the public sector is essential to making meaningful progress in reducing work-related road mortality.

119

Chapter 5 Private-public partnership
Roads are generally publicly-owned assets, managed and controlled by central or local government52. Although the roads are mainly used by private individuals and businesses, traditionally, road safety has been seen as a responsibility of government, linked to their ownership of the infrastructure. This traditional view is changing, however, and there is increasing understanding that there is a strong business case for collaboration on road safety for both the public and private sectors. Governments are interested in investing resources in road safety in cooperation with the business sector for the following reasons:
• • • •

Ability to gain political credibility and to improve relationships with communities; Greater transparency; Learn of more appropriate and replicable technical, social and institutional solutions; Leverage funding;

52 grsproadsafety.org/knowledge-partnerships_in_road_safety-9.html

121

• •

Turn lessons into legislation; and Disseminate knowledge and new skills.

1. Main reasons for business sector participation The main reasons for business sector participation in road safety are:

Cost savings: Large fleet operators can save substantial sums by reducing the number of times their vehicles are involved in road crashes. They may also reduce vehicle operating costs and insurance premiums as a result of safer driving practices. Market development and branding: Some businesses are willing to demonstrate the value of their safety products to persuade others to use them. Likewise, some businesses use their reputation for safety as part of their brand identification. Legal requirements under occupational health and safety laws: Many high-income countries have laws and regulations that treat business vehicles as part of the workplace. The vehicles therefore have to be of safe design, well maintained and safe to use. In addition, in many countries, legal requirements for work-related driving may be stricter than basic traffic rules. Safety culture and a sense of social responsibility: Many businesses voluntarily go beyond the health and safety requirements imposed by national 122

legislation. They may even adopt the goal of having no work-related accidents, including road crashes, and apply this to all their employees, including contractors and sub-contractors.

Corporate social responsibility: Most global businesses now recognize that they have social responsibilities in countries where they operate. Road safety activities often take place under this heading. Company reputation and quality assurance: Some businesses view fleet safety as part of total quality management. This involves influencing the need for road transport, how road transport is implemented and the choice of vehicles and equipment.

NGOs are of many kinds, from local to international, and with objectives ranging from promoting single issues, to broadly-based humanitarian organizations such as the Red Cross/Red Crescent movement, or associations such as the International Road Transport Union (IRU), which represents the road haulage industry at the international level. The opportunities for the NGOs include:
• • •

Strengthened and expanded access to influence public or private policy; Capacity building and fostering enabling environments for communities to voice their needs; Implementation of projects that may not otherwise have been completed;

123

• •

Scaling up, replicating and expanding existing programs; and More sustainable, long-term income.

The following business case is a good example of a private-public partnership in road safety. 2. Qatar road safety business case study Shell’s Pearl Gas to Liquids (GTL) facility in Qatar is the world’s largest GTL plant. At the onset of the project an extensive safety program was implemented that has created a culture in which everyone recognizes their role and responsibility for ensuring the safety of themselves and everyone around them. Pearl GTL was awarded the Gold Safety Award by his Excellency Dr. Mohammed bin Saleh Al-Sada, Qatar's Minister of Energy and Industry and is recognized as the leader in safety in the industry. At peak construction around 52,000 people were working on Pearl GTL. The project has taken a total of 500 million working hours to deliver. In August 2010, the project achieved 77 million man-hours without an injury leading to lost work time, a record for the Shell Group worldwide. Pearl GTL has successfully achieved the dual focus of caring for people and absolute compliance to safety rules. It has promoted a safety culture where people know the rules and want to follow them rather than just having to follow the rules. This focus has achieved a world class safety performance because people believe that it is possible to work without incidents.

124

The Pearl Village in Ras Laffan was established to support over 40,000 workers. The Pearl Village is leading in the Middle East in terms of worker welfare, providing workers a home away from home, where they can not only eat and sleep, but also enjoy entertainment, cultural and sporting events. An advanced health and psychological welfare infrastructure also exists in the Village. During the project’s initial planning Road Transport was identified as a major risk area requiring focused safety improvement. A Land Transport Safety Case was developed which defined the risks and mitigation measures for road transport activities. First and foremost is the management of the risk by reducing exposure. Since 2007 road journeys have been eliminated wherever possible by requiring Dohabased personnel to travel to Ras Laffan by bus rather than personal cars. This has saved an estimated 40 million kilometers of potential travel in passenger cars and has significantly reduced the risk by lowering the number of vehicles on the road. This has also limited the effects of increased traffic in communities such as Al-Khor. The reduction in vehicles and vehicle kilometers has also resulted in lower vehicle emissions. The project team also built a special offloading facility in Ras Laffan port to import freight, rather than trucking it from Doha port. The team has also focused on driver training and monitoring driving through In Vehicle Monitoring Systems (IVMS). The maximum speed, on the project’s 1.6 square kilometer site, is 30 kilometers an hour. The IVMS devices detect speeding, harsh braking, sharp acceleration or when a car is idling. Drivers cannot start cars without inserting their personal monitoring tags into a slot next to the ignition. The 125

chip sounds an alarm if drivers break safe-driving rules. If they persist they risk incurring the consequences which range from a warning, to at worst losing their job. It is in use in all of Shell and our contractors’ 5,000 cars, pickup trucks, buses and trucks on the project. “At first contractors were against it,” says Bill Shand, Senior Logistics HSE Supervisor. “When they realized it could lower fuel use — in one reported case by around 10% — reduced the number of vehicle breakdowns, and lowered tire wear, they were happy to do so, and even to introduce it on their other projects.” To further minimize the road transport risk, the Shell road safety standards were implemented and the Life-Saving Rules introduced. By the peak of construction in 2010 Pearl GTL had transported people and equipment over almost 300 million kilometers without a serious injury. 2.1. Road Safety Social Investment in Qatar Shell also introduced several road safety social investment initiatives: • Qatar Petroleum, Ras Laffan Industrial City and Shell, alongside other Ras Laffan end users, have run community road safety programs targeting school children in Al-Khor and in Al-Dhakira (50 schools have participated in 2009 and 2010). • In the state of Qatar, Shell is developing a joint program with the Ministry of Interior, partnering with the Supreme Education Council to introduce road safety into the academic curriculum and through national/region programs by sponsoring Al Jazeera children’s channel that incorporates

126

road safety cartoons which have been broadcasted across the region in 2008 and 2009. • Pearl GTL and the Supreme Educational Council have formed a partnership to include road safety aspects into various areas of the academic curriculum (e.g. examples of understanding the effect of speed in accident situations in the mathematics and physics syllabus). 2.2. Management commitment Key to success is management commitment. The project has pursued an Incident and Injury Free behavioral safety improvement program which has defined the safety culture. With a strong and personal drive from project and contractor leadership, this safety culture has been embedded throughout the organization down to the most junior worker. In recognition of Pearl GTL’s safety record, Shell Chief Executive Officer, Peter Voser, presented the project’s management with the CEO Award for Health, Safety, Security and Environment Leadership in 2010.

127

Conclusion
Around the world, road traffic crashes have devastating effects on the social and economic well-being of individuals and countries. The socio-economic ramifications are much bigger in developing countries, where there are fewer resources to cope with the effects of crashes and low-income households benefit from neither social security nor labor security. Developing countries have limited resources, which must be channeled toward the most efficient ways to achieve development and poverty reduction. A well aimed road safety policy could prevent many households from falling under the poverty line. Road crashes have often been considered as a given irreversible factor, but developed countries’ policies have proven that efficient measures can be taken to reduce crashes. In many OECD countries, such as France, the UK or Sweden, the number of road fatalities has been reduced by more than 50% since 1970. Developing countries need to initiate the process of preparing their national road safety plans through which guidelines and standards can be set dealing with all aspects of managing and improving infrastructure, enforcement, driver training, post crash management and safety awareness. It is important to send a message to all stakeholders that expenditure in road safety is an investment and not a cost, with the initial investments leading to much greater savings in the future. Road safety activities are highly cost-effective and provide a higher rate of return than any other investment 129

in transport. Selection of public policies for road safety should be based on effectiveness and efficiency: effectiveness because there is no value in implementing a policy that does not reduce crashes or injuries, and efficiency because limited resources should be directed toward the activities that yield the highest social return. It is essential for programs to be monitored. Accountability (and the measures needed to assess accountability) should be built into the operations of all governmental units with responsibility for road safety and activities should be coordinated across all the relevant ministries. For businesses and organizations, effective management of vehicles and drivers will result in operational and financial benefits, improvements in safety and environmental performance, and safety benefits for the communities in which they conduct business. To raise general awareness and spur political action, companies are actively engaged in advocacy and communication activities. Private companies’ political influence is commensurate with their financial standing in the national economy. Companies can, and should, use this influence to demonstrate leadership in the area of road safety as they do in technology and other areas. They are a driving force in influencing policymakers to take decisive actions to improve road safety. Developing road safety programs as an investment rather than a cost, with cooperation between the public and private sectors, is the way to unleash funding for development of sustainable road mobility. The following case studies were selected by the group of well known experts in road safety who participated in the respective workshops organised in the framework of the 11th edition of Michelin Challenge Bibendum on 18th of May 130

2011 in Berlin. They found the case studies useful for the stakeholders both from public and private sectors to elaborate road safety programs.

131

132

Appendix

133

Appendix 1 Cost estimates for selected countries

1. Thailand In 2005, the ASEAN and ADB issued a report on the cost of road crashes in 10 countries of the region. Thailand was chosen as an example because of the size and economic importance of the country. The method used in the report was the gross output. The following table provides the sources from which the data regarding the different type of costs were extracted. Table 10: Summary of Data Requirements and Sources of each Cost Component

135

Road crashes were the leading cause of death in Thailand in 2000, accounting for almost 10% of that year’s deaths. The estimated years of life lost by Thais due to road crashes was about 600,000.53 It is all the more noteworthy that the average age of a casualty was 31.7 and that the average age of retirement was of 60, hence the average Thai crash victim lost 28.3 productive years! Even if the conservative estimate provided by the gross output method is used, losses due to road crashes are considerable. The loss is estimated to be of 115,932 million Baht, or approximately 2.13% of the GDP.54 2. India Mohan undertook a study to re-evaluate the cost of car crashes in India. His work was based on previous research by Tata Consultancy Service, which estimated that the cost of road crashes was 0.69% of the GDP. The Tata estimates were based on the gross output approach. He pointed out some of the factual errors in the premises under which the previous report was based and provided a new estimate. Life expectancy had been underestimated by 10 years. The cost of care had been taken from public hospital data without taking into account that medical treatments include hidden subsidies. The ratio of death: serious injury: minor injury had been undervalued and underreporting had not been taken into account. As shown in
53 Data provided in the report on BAD, p. 1 which come from the Thai Bureau of Health Policy and Planning in 2001. 54 Ibid p . 13 More detailed information about the steps taken to carry out the study can be found in the report.

136

the table below, the revised estimate of crash costs was that road crashes actually had cost 3.2% of the GDP. More details on Road Safety Investments in India and Actions being taken for road safety by Ministry of Road Transport & Highways and IRF may be found in Appendixes 2 and 3. Table 11: Revised estimates for costs of road traffic crash injuries in India

3. France In France, the cost of road crashes is calculated by extrapolating the results from a study produced in 1991-1992 for the Ministry of Infrastructure, Housing and Transport using the gross output approach. Insurance companies are the primary source of data. In France almost all vehicles, if not all, are insured. Therefore, it may be assumed that cost estimates are representative of the entire population of crashes, although under reporting could still be an issue. The National Planning Commission estimated crash costs for 2000 as follows: 1.2 million Euros for a death, 150,000 137

for a serious injury, 22,000 euros for a light injury and 5,500 for property damage only. Currently, the National Interministerial Observatory for Road Safety inflates costs associated with injuries at the same rate of increase as per capita household spending, and indexes property damages to inflation. The total cost of crashes was estimated to be 25.42 billion euros or 2% of the GDP, with personal injury crashes accounting for 11.65 billion Euros.55 Costs were estimated to be 1,229,761 Euros for a death, 132,857 Euros for a serious injury, 5,315 Euros for a light injury and 6,342 Euros for a crash involving property damage only.56 and 6,342 Euros for material damages. The definition of accident severity having changed in 2005; serious injuries were estimated to cost 132,857 Euros in 2007 and light injuries 5,315 Euros. 4. The United States In the United States, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published estimates on the cost of road crashes. In 2000, 41,821 persons were killed, 5.3 million injured and 27.6 million vehicles were damaged, costing 230.6 billion US Dollars or 820 US Dollars per inhabitant, accounting for 2.3% of the GDP. Table 12: Summary of Total Costs, 2000 (in millions US $)
55 The data provided in the part comes from the 2007 report « Road safety in France » by the National Interministerial Observatory for Road Safety 56 Estimated costs of serious and light injuries for 2000 and 2007 are not comparable because definitions of accident severity changed in 2005.

138

The United States case is of particular interest because it both studied the cost of time spent in traffic due to crashes and it separated market productivity from household productivity. The first is estimated to cost 25.6 billion US Dollars, the equivalent of 11% of the overall bill. The second was derived from the cost of hiring someone to do the household work. Lost household productivity accounted for 20.2 billion US Dollars representing 9% of the total costs. In the US, 80% of the total cost of a casualty comes from the loss of market and household productivity. A death costs

139

977 000 dollars whereas a critical injury57 costs 1.1 million US Dollars. Compared to fatalities, serious injuries typically require more resources for treatment and rehabilitation; medical costs made up 25% of the total costs of nonfatal injuries but only 2% for fatal injuries. The report shows also that 9% of all the costs are paid from public revenues, of which 6% are federal revenues; 50% is paid by private insurers; 14% is paid by third parties pay 14% (such as charities or delayed commuters; and 26% is paid by individual crash victims. The table above extracted from the report (p. 8) summarizes the costs. 5. United Kingdom Since 1993, the UK has used the willingness-to-pay (WTP) method to evaluate the human cost of both fatal and non-fatal casualties in order to account for the value of pain, grief and suffering. The elements of cost included in the calculation of personal injuries are: - Loss of output due to injury, calculated as the present value of the expected loss of earning plus any non-wage payments paid by the employer; - Ambulance costs and the cost of hospital treatment; - Human costs, based on WTP values.

57 This study categorizes injuries based on the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). Victims with multiple injuries were classified based on the injury associated with the highest AIS score (MAIS).

140

To these are added the material costs of the accident, consisting of damage to vehicles and property, and the cost of policy and insurance administration. This method is considered to be best suited for a costbenefit analysis of road safety measures. The overall cost of crashes is considered by the government to be the value of accident prevention. This approach gives significantly bigger figures for human value. In 2005, 2,913 fatal crashes, 25,029 serious crashes, 170,793 crashes resulting in slight injuries, and 3 million crashes with property damage only were reported. The cost of those crashes was estimated to be 12.8 billion Pounds Sterling The value of the 3 million damage only crashes was of around 5 billion Pounds Sterling. Injury-producing crashes were estimated to cost 12.8 billion Pounds Sterling and property-damage-only crashes 5 billion Pounds Sterling, a total of 17.85 billion Pounds Sterling58 or 1.5% of the GDP. 6. Germany The Federal Highway Research Institute calculates the costs caused by road accidents on an annual basis.59 The calculation model used was revised within a research project for the 2005 data and is permanently updated to take into due

58 Highway Economics Note No. 1, 2005 Valuation of the Benefits of Prevention of Road Accidents and Casualties, 2007, Department for Transport, p. 7. 59 BAST: Volkswirtschaftliche Kosten durch Straßenverkehrsunfälle in Deutschland, 2010.

141

consideration both the changes occurring in the underlying economic parameters and in the increased accident damage evaluation knowledge. The economic costs for 2008 resulting from these calculations were 31 billion Euros for personal injuries and property damages as a consequence of road traffic accidents occurred in Germany. Compared to the preceding year, the accident costs had dropped by around three per cent, that is around 970 million Euros. Out of the overall economic accident costs, those for personal injuries accounted for a total of 14.04 billion Euros in 2008. These split into costs of 4.64 billion Euros for killed persons, 7.83 billion Euros for severely injured and 1.57 billion Euros for slightly injured. The costs for personal injuries thus added up to 45% of the total costs. The costs for property damages amounted to 55% corresponding to 16.96 billion Euros. Changes in accident numbers, accident severity, health system costs and the income situation have a decisive impact on the economic loss generated by road traffic accidents. This led us to revise the calculation model used since 1996. Based on the new 2005 calculation model, accident costs are regularly adjusted. The discontinuity as compared to the previous methodology has to be accepted for the sake of a most realistic representation of the economic losses suffered. The overall accident costs dropped as compared to the preceding year by around 3% owing to less personal injuries as well as less property damages. Again in 2008, the single most important reason for this development is the significant decline in the number of persons killed in road accidents by 472 persons as compared to the preceding year. The costs generated by killed persons in road accidents declined by nearly 9% as compared to the preceding year. Contrary to 142

the trend given for personal injuries, the costs for property damage have increased by 4.4% since 2005. The accident cost rates for personal injuries and property damages have also developed proportionate to the occurrence of accidents and the prevailing economic conditions. The costs for personal injuries for all casualty categories have increased as compared to 2005, with the steepest increase for the severely injured amounting to 4.8%. The costs for property damages, except for the fatal accidents, have increased per accident in all remaining accident categories. 7. Russia In 2010 in the Russian Federation 199,431 road accidents occurred, in which 26,567 persons were killed and 250,635 persons were injured. In 11,845 of the road accidents drivers had alcohol in their blood in sufficient concentrations to impair their roaduse skills, In these road accidents 1,954 persons were killed and 17,280 persons were injured. For last year 20,262 road accidents involved children of which 898 children were killed, and 21,149 children were injured. The situation is serious in spite of the decreasing number of persons killed on the roads in recent years. The lowest number of fatalities was registered in 2010. There was an increase in the number of accidents with extremely heavy consequences (5 and more killed or 10 and more injured in any one accident). The total annual cost of all road accidents in the Russian Federation is 2.5% of the country’s GNP. The average cost 143

of a road accident death in Russia is about 2.2 million. Rubles (about 80,000 Euros). In Russia the total cost of road accidents include the following losses: - Losses from death and injury to people; - Losses from damage to vehicles; - Losses from damage to a cargo; - Losses from damage to road. The losses from death and injury to people comprise the most significant part of losses from road accident. The cost of a road accident is estimated using the direct and indirect economic losses. The direct losses are the economic costs incurred by owners of road transport, road administration, motor licensing and inspection departments and legal bodies for investigation of road accidents, medical institutions for the treatment of victims, companies when their employees are victims of road accidents (payment of salaries, delivery of grants) and state bodies providing social security (pension) and insurance payments. The indirect economic losses cover time off work and full leave for employees from the workplace, the infringement of industrial communications and moral losses. The table below gives the standard cost of road accidents in Russia. These figures are being used by road traffic safety management agencies to improve measures to ensure road safety, etc. In practice the cost of road accidents in Russia is used for the general estimation of losses to society from road accidents and for deciding the choice of action to ensure traffic safety in the future. In Russia this practical method 144

brings to light insufficient financing and a way of establishing priorities in the application of various actions to ensure the development of road traffic safety. The method is based on the analysis of the severity of consequences resulting from accidents at specific points on the road. The severity of consequences from road accidents varies considerably at different sections on the road. In Russia this method is used by traffic police and road administration. Table 13: Number of Fatalities in Road Traffic Accidents in Russia (2001-2009)

145

Appendix 2 Road Safety Investments in India
The increased need for mobility to support the rapid economic development across India is resulting in the initiation of a significant number of large-sized road infrastructure projects. While infrastructure is being created there seems to be no attention towards building capacity in managing the same. The total number of accidents reported by all the States/Union Territories (UTs) in the year 2008 were 4,84,704 of which 1,06,591 or 22% of total accidents were fatal; the number of persons killed in the accidents were 1,19,860 (i.e. an average of one fatality per 4 accidents) and the number of persons injured at 5,23,193 exceeded total number of accidents (4,84,704) in 2008. The proportion of fatalities has consistently increased since 2001 as reflected in While each year the government the table below.60 announces a large percentage of reduction, surprisingly the figures are increasing each year by 2-4%. On the other hand Government designated committee headed by S. Sundar revealed that while the number of fatalities reported may be correct, but accidents on the whole have been much under reported. The report elaborates that serious injuries in India could be as much as 20 times the fatalities as against 4 times reported by the government. This is a very serious issue to deliberate. The committee also
60 Road Accidents in India, MORT&H, 2008.

146

estimated that social costs due to road crashes amounted to `55,000 Crores when 85,000 fatalities were taking place and the cost index was taken on Year 2000 figures. Accordingly an estimate of Social costs for the Year 2009 could be placed at 18.2 billion US Dollars or 1.5% of the National GDP. Table 14: Number of Fatalities in Road Traffic Accidents 2001-2009

Factors Affecting Road Safety Europe and United States reversed the trend of rising road crash fatalities over 1980s and 1990s by as much as 50% even as vehicle volume and distance travelled increased. A major contributor to this reversal was the move away from 147

“Blame the Victim” attitude. Instead there was a shift towards safety systems approach in which road safety management treats the road user, the vehicle and the road infrastructure as three components of a single dynamic system (McMahon & Ward 2005). PIARC (2003) attributes accidents to a number of factors, the most significant ones are related to human factors (93%), which includes human-road environment related (26%), human-vehicle (6%), and others (4%). This breakdown indicates that potential improvements in human-road environment interface can enhance safety benefits. Similarly a recent South African study showed that 78% of accidents are due to human factors, 10% are due to vehicle factors and road factors accounted for 12%. While these figures can vary from place to place (and country to country), the general nature is evident from the fact that human-environment-vehicle system collectively accounts for unsafe road conditions61. An analysis of road accidents in India for the year 2008, presented by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways mentions that 81% of the accidents were caused due to driver error, road environment only 1%, vehicle defects 2% and cyclists and pedestrians have been blamed for 2-3% of the accidents. These are the primary causative factors, but what are the factors behind such causes are not mentioned. It is very important to mention here that these statistics presented are based upon police reports where much of the accidents are not scientifically investigated, and therefore leave no

61 Vanserschure 2006.

148

scope for scientific assessment or use for initiating remedial measures. A recent study done by the Institute of Road Traffic Education revealed that as many as 146 million Road Traffic Violations (RTVs)are committed by motorised traffic on Delhi’s roads every day. An important finding of this study was that 23% of these violations were due to faulty road environment. A simple logic to say that this percentage could be the same for the occurrence of fatalities due to road conditions would be not incorrect. Over 20 years of research at the Institute of Road Traffic Education has found that there are the following factors which have not been adequately addressed by the National and State Governments: - Traffic Management. The most important factor in the Indian traffic management scenario is that the first step of defining “Traffic Management “ has not been initiated and therefore the roles and responsibility of the so called traffic management agencies have also not been defined. One can only witness fingers pointing towards the other, or blame the victim or the driver. - Scientific Accident Investigation and Analysis. There is almost a virtual vacuum in the area of Scientific Accident Investigation. The factual causes and consequences are not known. Police reports are generally rudimentary mostly blaming the heavier vehicle for the cause of crash. But this is not all. Most First Information Reports mention the precipitating factor for the cause but hardly dwell upon or investigate the contributing factors. Much needs to be elaborated on this issue as road safety can only begin from 149

here. When the factual causes are not known, remedial measures also become arbitrary and the statistics are of no consequence to authorities, institutions and research organisations. - Legislation. The primary legislation of road traffic in India – the Indian Motor Vehicles Act – was last amended in 1988. Legislation should be regularly updated. There is a need of a total overhaul as far as the sections and rules dealing with traffic control and safety are concerned. Also the Rules must also conform to the UN Convention of 1968. Such delays in updating legislation have resulted in the enforcement systems getting handicapped. - Traffic Engineering. Efficient and safe movement of traffic is directly dependent on scientific application of Traffic Engineering Systems. The science of Traffic Engineering was adopted by the UK and USA as early as 1930. Today almost all countries in the developed world have traffic engineering centres. In India, there are hardly any traffic engineering centres as much of this work is being outsourced leading to much confusion which can be witnessed today. Additionally the capacity for road safety audit is weak. - Design Standards of Roads & Traffic Control Devices. Design standards for the roads and that of Traffic Control Devices are formulated by the Indian Roads Congress are not statutory. Many of these standards are not need and research based and not compatible with Indian mixed traffic conditions. Some are old and outdated.

150

- Driver Training & Assessment. Driver training is one of the most important measures to reduce accident involvement. Granting of driver licences should therefore be done after ensuring that the driver is well trained and aware of the requirements spelled under the legislation. The situation in India is well known that licences are easily available without proper training and testing. Our research demonstrates that most driver training schools have insufficient tools and systems of training, or are not available at all. Trainers do not have any opportunities to be trained and similar is the case with the licensing officers who issue driver licences. - Enforcement. The IRTE study quoted above has brought in a new dimension to the enforcement problems in India. In 2007 when the study was done, 146 million daily Road Traffic Violations were estimated in Delhi. Delhi Police reported an average of an estimated 11,100 which is barely 1: 13,100. When violators are not booked and where there is no immediacy of punishment, it boosts the motorists’ confidence to violate without fear of being caught or being penalised. This is the basic cause for the fall in road user behavior. Traffic management does not figure as an important part in the curriculum of police academies and schools. Even where there exists, the training is rudimentary and more of class room lectures which do not correspond to the requirements of today. Modern tools and systems of enforcement are not available to traffic police authorities except in major metropolitan cities. Highway enforcement is negligible where over 60% of the fatal accidents occur.

151

- Post Crash Management. There is hardly any literature review in India to highlight how many minor injuries have resulted into serious ones, and how many serious injuries have translated into fatalities and what percentage could have been saved from timely and correct help after a crash. Tools and systems of training, facility development as well as training itself is lacking to a large extent. - Public Health for Road Safety. Road Traffic deaths and injuries are preventable and it is only in recent years that road safety has been considered a serious health problem. Public Health for road safety has a very important role to play where primary prevention forms the basis. Principles of epidemiology need to be applied to analyze the patterns of incidence and determinants of injury. Behavioural science should be used to increase knowledge of the social and behavioural aspects of high risk driving behaviour. This aspect of road safety development which has not been considered should be invested in both by the Governments as well as by the Non-Government Organisations. - Road Safety Education. There is a misconception about the need of imparting road safety education. It is often observed that authorities, bureaucrats and politicians recommend strongly that road safety education in schools must be made compulsory. They believe that this is the best and the most important solution to all the above negations in the road traffic system. They believe that the new generation will respect what the current generation has not been able to do so.

152

There is no doubt that Road Safety Education in schools is important, but at the same time the basis of education must be demonstrated by the road authorities. In India almost 60% of crashes occur on highways and the most affected are the citizens of nearby villages who have not got the opportunity to be educated in schools. Awareness raising programmes suited to all citizens and suited to different environments must be created. We need to start with the education of those who are responsible for the management of road traffic, whether those from the administrative services, police services, engineers and from amongst the driver trainers. It should also be the duty of the administrators to bring awareness to the legislators in improving the lack of political will to take adequate measures correctly and in time. Conclusion Developing countries like India need to initiate the process of preparing their National Road Safety Plans based on the five pillars recommended within the Global Pan for the Decade of Action through which guidelines and standards can be set dealing with all aspects of managing and improving infrastructure, enforcement, driver training, post crash management and safety awareness. To control the high social costs due to road crashes ranging from 1.5% - 3% of the GDP, the Government must evaluate the potential for substantial returns on investments to be made on road safety interventions as indicated in this paper. The Commission for Global Road Safety has recommended that 10% of overall investment in roads should be allocated to road safety. Road safety is a shared 153

responsibility and therefore it is not for the Government alone to consider such investments, rather all those who gain from the movement of traffic and the infrastructure thereof should be asked to consider investment of a small percentage of their profits in safety management, perhaps through CSR initiatives.

154

Appendix 3 Actions being taken for road safety by Ministry of Road Transport & Highways and IRF (India Chapter)
A National Campaign for reduction of road fatalities in India was launched jointly by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRT&H) and IRF India Chapter in September, 2009. IRF India Chapter has been spearheading actions to be taken by the Government as well as the private sector players by mobilizing opinion, action and resources aiming at the reduction of road fatalities in India. Important activities are listed below: (i) IRF India Chapter has made valuable suggestions for consideration in revision of Motor Vehicles Act in India. A Committee constituted by the India Chapter comprising members from all the stakeholders of road sector has recommended a series of engineering improvements in the rural and urban roads for satisfying the specific requirements of forgiving roads. The Government has also issued a circular on 27th April, 2010 to all concerned Departments to implement the desired engineering measures both on existing roads as well as on the on-going road projects.

(ii)

155

(iii) IRF India Chapter has written to all the state PWDs to identify one most unsafe road in each state (based on the accidents and fatality data) and get these appropriately safety audited to identify the corrections required. These improvements/corrective measures are then to be implemented so that at least one road becomes forgiving in each state. MORT&H has agreed that the states could submit such estimates (requirement of funds) to the Ministry for approval and sanction. (iv) On the recommendation of IRF India Chapter, the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways have made the road safety audit (RSA) a mandatory requirement at various stages of development, and certification to this effect with compliance to the RSA recommendations will be required for approval of the project. As India did not have required capacity for conducting RSA, the IRF in association with ARRB had formulated a certification course for Road Safety Auditors, and 180 auditors have been trained so far. However this is far short of the total national requirement. (v) A proposal for model Driver Training Academy and Research Centre has been submitted to Government of India. It is recommended that such centers be established in about 20 locations in the country. It has also been recommended to the Government that, for extending the network of driver training schools, the available infrastructure in the existing Polytechnics and Industrial Training Institutes, which have Automobile Engineering or Motor Mechanics Departments, can also be used for faster implementation.

156

These will facilitate creation of fully equipped driver training schools, in the range of 10,000 or so, with minimum additional investment. Simultaneously, the existing driver training schools will also be upgraded with facilities and trained instructors for driver training. (vi) The Government and all stakeholders have been requested to engage in a massive campaign for road safety awareness. IRF India Chapter has prepared different types of public education campaign materials for promoting road safety through print and visual media, which are: - Five television promos have been prepared on Road Safety themes jointly with NDTV for showing on television. More such promos are under preparation on several other themes of road safety. - On the recommendations of IRF India Chapter, Government of India has issued directives to all States to show road safety short films before a feature film is screened in cinema halls. Two short films on road safety themes, viz. drunken driving and help to accident victims, have been produced by IRF for showing in cinema halls. More such films are under production. - IRF India Chapter has procured 300 copies of the films (in different regional languages). Screening of these films has been started by Govt. of NCT of Delhi in 22 cinema halls since 7th January, 2011. Films are also distributed to various other states for showing in cinema halls.

157

(vii)

A number of posters on Road Safety have been prepared for display in the Government as well as private corporate offices. These are on display now in many such offices in India. (viii) A Poster has been designed and displayed in various hospitals in Delhi, following a directive of Apex Court of the Country, to encourage the general public to attend and help road accident victims to reach hospital without any apprehension of questioning by police. (ix) IRF India Chapter has prepared a series of short and catchy Road Safety messages, which the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways has published thrice a week in 120 newspapers in the country in different languages. These are continuing. (x) The Government has issued a circular to all States to display large hoardings with Road Safety messages in various important locations. IRF India Chapter has designed a large number of such hoardings and supplied the prototype designs to all the States for display. The Government of Delhi has implemented these hoardings in 100 locations at the first stage. (xi) The IRF India Chapter has prepared and submitted to the Governmenta status report for the Road Safety Education in school curriculum, and the way it is to be adopted uniformly across all school boards in the country. The Government has since set up an Expert Group to develop the curriculum under the chairmanship of CBSE. The curriculum for sixth and seventh classes has been finalized. (xii) The Government has been requested to issue instructions to print the road signs with their 158

meanings in the front and inside back covers of all school text books, for mass awareness on the road signs. (xiii) Some visits of Road Safety Experts to schools have been sponsored by the India Chapter to develop safety consciousness amongst school children and adoption of safe road user behavior through lectures, games, competitions, and actual demonstrations. (xiv) IRF India Chapter has taken up with the Government to issue instructions to the respective industries to paint the mudguards of the motorized two wheelers in fluorescent paint for visibility at all times. (xv) The Government has been requested to get the entire bicycle painted in an orange color, at the time of manufacturing, for better visibility even at night. This has been favorably considered by the Government, and the matter has been taken up by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry for implementation by using reflective tapes to be fixed in six locations in the front, rear and sides of a bicycle. (xvi) On the recommendation of IRF India Chapter, the Government is actively working with SIAM (Society for Indian Automobile Manufacturers) to implement various in-vehicle safety devices in all motor vehicles. (xvii) IRF India Chapter has taken up training of Transport Department Officials, especially Motor Vehicle Inspectors, and other officials connected with implementation of Motor Vehicles Act, in three states, viz. Nagaland, Tripura and Andaman and Nicobar. This is being planned in several other states also. 159

(xviii) IRF India Chapter organizes the Regional Conference in India regularly, through participation of experts of road safety with both national and international experiences, to offer a highly professional platform to deliberate and guide the road safety developments in the country. (xix) On the recommendation of IRF India Chapter, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways has taken up with the Ministry of Finance, on the following matters: • To permit duty free import of Intelligent Transport System related equipment for efficient traffic management and safety. • To permit duty free import of Driving Simulators, which are essential for Driver Training Schools to impart proper training for improving driving skills. • To provide tax exemption to the Donors from the corporate world and philanthropist individuals,, who would be willing to extend a helping hand by incurring expenditure towards road safety programs. To combat all the road safety problems, IRF India Chapter is systematically working with a multi-prong approach on all four Es: 1. Engineering: The Engineering improvements of roads would cover the forgiving designs through rigoros audits and then to implement comprehensive road markings, installation of appropriate road

160

signage, lighting, delineators, and provision of crash barriers, as appropriate. 2. Enforcement: The Enforcement system can be strengthened to concentrate on the four key risk factors: drunken driving, speed control, and the wearing of seat belts and wearing of helmets by both driver and pillion rider in addition to .prevention of overloading. Law to be enforced to compulsorily provide reflective tapes on three sides of the all commercial vehicles, trucks, trailers and buses. It needs to be enacted to cover the tractor trollies and the non-motorized vehicles as well. 3. Education: The public in general are to be continuously intrigued by the demand for behaving correctly while using the road. For this, many educational campaigns to be carried out like various road safety promos on TV, short Road Safety Films to be screened in Cinema Houses, Road Safety to be duly incorporated in school syllabus, printing of road signs on the inside of the front and back covers of school books, road safety messages to be displayed on various prominent locations, viz. bus stops, market places, airports, etc. 4. Emergency Care: The healthcare cost of the road safety problem is enormous, and it mounts with delay in providing the required medical help. The awareness drive and First Aid training for commercial drivers, provision of a network of hospitals with appropriate trauma care facilities for accident victims, ambulances with all necessary lifesaving systems, inclusion of trauma care as regular

161

training in medical education, are some of the urgent requirements to save lives, which are being pursued.

162

Appendix 4 A shared approach to managing road safety - Multilateral Development Banks
Seven Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) issued in November 2009 a joint statement outlining a broad package of measures that each would implement in order to reduce an anticipated and alarming rise in the number of road fatalities and casualties in developing countries. The participating MDBs are the African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, European Investment Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, Islamic Development Bank and the World Bank. The joint statement consists of the following points: • Global call for action: acknowledgement of the scale of the public health crisis arising from deaths and injuries on the roads of developing and emerging countries, the recommendations of the World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention62, the global call for action from World Health Assembly Resolution
62 Eds. Peden M., Scurfield R., Sleet D., Mohan D., Hyder A., Jarawan E., Mathers C., World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention, World Health Organization, Geneva, 2004.

163

WHA57.10 (Road safety and health) and UN General Assembly Resolutions 56/289, 60/5 and 62/244 (Improving global road safety). • Systematic, multisectoral response: Recognition that a systematic, multisectoral response is required to address this global crisis including interventions that improve the safety of road infrastructure, vehicles, road user behavior and postcrash services, and support of the principles of the Safe System approach63 aiming at (i) developing road transport systems prevention, reduction and accommodation of human error; (ii) taking into account social costs and impacts of road trauma in the development and selection of investment program; (iii) establishing shared responsibility for road safety among all stakeholders; (iv) creating effective and comprehensive management and communications structures for road safety; and (v) aligning safety management decision making with broader societal decision making to meet economic, human and environmental goals, and to create an environment that generates demand for safe road transport products and services. Recognition of the relevance of this approach to all countries
63 OECD, International Transport Forum (2008). Towards Zero. Ambitious Road Safety Targets and the Safe System Approach, Joint Transport Research Centre, OECD/ITF, Paris.

164

irrespective of their economic or road safety performance. A significant and sustained contribution to fatality reduction will come from road infrastructure safety improvements. • Shared approach 1. Recognition that MDBs’ respective organizations expect to remain significantly engaged in the provision of road infrastructure in developing and emerging countries over the coming decade, and beyond, commitment to share their organizational practices and knowledge to support (i) the strengthening of road safety management capacity of their clients; (ii) the implementation of safety approaches in the design, construction, operation and maintenance of road infrastructure projects, particularly to improve safe access and protection for vulnerable road users who represent a significant proportion of the people served by the projects MDBs finance; (iii) the improvement of safety performance measures; and (iv) the mobilization of resources for road safety. 2. To achieve this approach MDBs will share the complementary skills and practices they each develop in their respective operations in the areas of: (i) Strengthening road safety management capacity • Help establish country-specific mechanisms for improving road safety management functions and safety practices aiming at achieving the sustainable, effective, and cost-efficient reduction of road casualties. 165

Create awareness for safety in order to achieve informed decisions by countries on the planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of road infrastructure assets and networks. • Improve communications, cooperation, and collaboration among global, regional and country institutions in the area of road safety and facilitate the dissemination of up-to-date safety-related information. • Provide their staff development and training to facilitate the successful implementation of shared procedures, guidelines and related tools. • Contribute to the training of transportation safety professionals in developing and emerging countries by financing efforts such as the development of road safety education programs, manuals and training materials promoting good practices related to road safety, to facilitate the implementation of improved road safety practices and procedures. (ii) Implementation of safety approaches in the planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of road infrastructure projects • Develop shared procedures, guidelines and related tools to implement a safety approach to the planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of road infrastructure projects. • Ensure that safety is integrated in all phases of planning, design, construction, appraisal, operation and maintenance of road infrastructure. • Promote the adoption of good practice, proactive approaches to improve the safety of road 166

infrastructure including the use of road safety audits, road safety inspections, and road safety impact assessments. • Develop specific approaches to address the safety requirements of vulnerable road users (pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists), including a special focus on urban areas where a high proportion of trauma occurs. (iii)Improvement of safety performance measures • Promote the establishment of sustainable management systems for road crash data collection, entry, verification, storage, retrieving and analysis, including GIS-based applications. • Promote the use of good practice quantitative and qualitative indicators to measure safety results. • Promote the development, piloting, and objective validation of innovative safety indicators, such as the safety rating of roads. (iv) Mobilization of resources for road safety • Transfer road safety knowledge and experience across and within MDBs’ organizations, and to their global, regional and country partners. • Support the mobilization of additional domestic and external resources for road safety. • Support the mission and goals of the Global Road Safety Facility in its promotion of innovative solutions to road safety issues. • Establish as needed an expert technical group comprising staff from our respective organizations 167

and international specialists to assist in the development of shared approaches to road safety. Identify, and pursue opportunities for scaling up road safety in countries strategies.

168

Appendix 5 Arval Case Study
Arval is the leading vehicle fleet and fuel management expert in Europe, and manages 623,000 vehicles across 39 different countries around the world. Arval´s commitment to quality has been based on 30 years experience which enables them to provide guidance and support to some of the largest UK FTSE 100 companies as well as to smaller businesses with just one or two vehicles. Arval considers the impact of its activities upon the environment, the workplace, the marketplace and the communities in which it operates and wherever possible seeks to ensure that its impact is a positive one. Arval has an extensive CO2 reduction programme in place, incorporating its own site facilities, recycling and company cars. Where it is has been impossible completely to eliminate its emissions, Arval has offset its carbon. To do this Arval uses CER (Certified Emission Reductions) trading certificates which are administered through projects under the KYOTO Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism. Nature of Operation and Driving Activities Arval provides company cars to eligible employees as part of the remuneration package and/or in order to undertake business journeys for which Arval has a Duty of Care. Arval draws on over 30 years experience and provides advice and makes recommendations around its customers 169

specific funding and fleet management requirements. Arval recognises that every company has different needs depending on its operational circumstances, financial structure and tax status. It is supported by the financial backing of BNP Paribas – one of Europe’s largest and most successful banks. Arval’s CEO takes a personal interest in his company’s approach to Corporate Social Responsibility and the safety of his employees when they drive for work. He chairs a Road Safety Committee which meets in order to encourage safe driving by all Arval company car drivers and proactively to encourage best practice to all Arval employees, customers and the wider community. "For Arval, road safety and the environment are essential in our proactive approach to corporate social responsibility." Arval manages a fleet of over 150,000 vehicles with access to over one million drivers. We therefore take our road safety responsibility very seriously. We believe as fleet providers it´s important to encourage and promote safe driving with our customers, staff and our local community many of whom share our views on the importance of road safety. For Arval, road safety is an essential and specific element of its proactive approach to Corporate Social Responsibility. Arval recognizes that its commitment to road safety provides a benefit to the morale of its staff. Over 650 of its employees and a number of Arval customers, have been trained within its ‘Drive4Life’ road safety training programme. As a result of its initial success, this training was extended to all employees rather than just company car drivers. On the back of this, there has been widespread positive feedback from staff showing that they feel more valued because of the 170

training. They perceive Arval as a “company that cares about them” and which goes beyond the minimum legal requirements in support of their welfare. Arval believes it is also important to encourage and promote safe driving with its customers and within the local community. The reduced insurance and running cost as well as a distinct human advantage have been ingredients of the company’s motivation. http://www.drivingforbetterbusiness.com/casestudies/arval .aspx

171

Appendix 6 Michelin’s Road Safety Commitments
With 111,000 employees and sales organizations in more than 170 countries, Michelin is worldwide leader of the tire manufacturers. Dedicated to the improvement of sustainable mobility, Michelin desgins, manufactures and sells tires for every type of vehicle, including airplanes, automobiles, bicycles, earthmovers, farm equipment, heavy-duty trucks, motorcycles and the US space shuttle, on 72 production sites in 19 countries throughout five continents. The company also publishes travel guides, hotel and restaurant guides, maps and road atlases and offers an electronic mobility support service on ViaMichelin.com. Research and Innovation development is being taken care of in technology centres in Europe, USA and Japan. The Company manufactures tires, products designed to help transport people and goods, at the best possible price and in maximum safety. When it comes to safety, the quality of the products, carefully inspected at every stage of production, has always been an absolute imperative. In recommended conditions of use, the performance of Michelin’s tires in terms of grip, handling, braking and run-flat capability for the PAX System, makes a significant contribution to safety.

172

1. Michelin’s commitments to its employees Michelin is implementing road safety awareness initiatives for its staff. More than 120,000 employees around the world have already received specific training via Michelin’s communication aids: • • • • • Training aids on tire pressure Training on off-site working risks Internal communication aids: magazines A monthly risk management scorecard with indicators for managers A “Michelin Good Driver” Charter rolled out in 2010

Our commitment: reducing the number of road-related employee accidents by 15% in 2011 as compared to 2010. 2. Risk Assessment Summary Michelin uses the process of risk assessment to identify hazard and risk within all aspects of work for the Company. Assessing risk enables Michelin to define the control measures needed to help to prevent accidents and ill health. Applying risk assessment principles to road safety is part of the overall safety management process. The assessment must be reviewed when necessary, for example when there is a significant change in work or the work environment, or in the light of incidents or accidents. Periodic review and monitoring will be necessary to ensure that control measures are being used and that these are fully effective.

173

Hazard identification and reporting. Information about hazards at work is used to update risk assessments and highlight where additional control measures may be required. Identifying hazards at work or during specific activities is the responsibility of every employee. Generic assessments. The Company may produce a generic or ‘model’ risk assessment where similar activities are undertaken in similar places of work. The generic assessment will account for the majority of hazards and risks that arise, but will require fine-tuning and adaptation to cater for individual circumstances. Vehicle issue. Before a driver is allowed to drive a vehicle on Company business, the Company must ensure that both the driver and vehicle have met all the criteria detailed in the Michelin Road Safety Handbook. Driving license. Every driver who is permitted to drive on Company business must have a current driving license for the vehicle they will be driving. Michelin will make periodic checks to ensure the validity of these licenses. Recruitment. New employees required to drive on Company business will be put through an induction programme which will include a driving assessment. Assessment and training. All existing and new employees using a car as part of their daily work will be required to undertake a driving assessment and may consequently be required to undertake further driver training. Fitness to Drive medical. Drivers may be required to undertake a medical which will determine their fitness for driving on Company business. Vehicle selection. When providing vehicles for employees to drive on Company business, consideration is

174

given to the levels of protection for all occupants and pedestrians in the event of an accident. Vehicle maintenance and checking. Legislation sets out clear requirements for both the employer and employee regarding the roadworthiness and safe operation of all vehicles. This means that employees, as well as Michelin, are responsible for seeing that these requirements are properly carried out. It is the individual’s responsibility to check that the vehicle is roadworthy at all times. Management of incidents and accidents. All vehicle accidents/incidents will be recorded and thoroughly investigated in order to establish the factors that led to the event. This will enable Michelin to identify trends and operational weaknesses, helping to prevent recurrence. All accidents involving Company vehicles must be reported, regardless of the amount of damage, including accidents not involving a third party. Journey planning. In order to ensure the safety of the driver and other road users, the Company has guidelines in place for journey planning. Mobile phones. The use of a mobile phone whilst driving on Company business is forbidden, unless all legal requirements are met , and a hands-free kit is used. Safe speed. Michelin expects drivers to drive at suitable speeds commensurate with the prevailing road conditions. Drivers must always obey statutory speed limits. Drugs and alcohol. It is categorically forbidden for employees to drive a vehicle, whilst on Company business, in an unfit state due to the influence of drugs, alcohol or other substances, or to be in possession of illegal drugs on Company property or in Company vehicles. Employees taking medicines or prescribed drugs under the direction of 175

their dentist, hospital doctor or GP which may impair their driving ability, must notify their Line Manager or Personnel department. Using own car on Company business (OBU). Employees using their own vehicles on Company business must register their vehicles onto the OBU scheme. Monitoring and reporting. The Company has in place performance measurement and audit processes to ensure compliance with the Road Safety Handbook. It is every employee’s responsibility to comply with the instructions in the handbook and to co-operate fully with the reporting systems in place for gathering information. Failure to comply. Processes are in place to deal with any instances of non-compliance with the Road Safety Policy. Disciplinary action may be taken in cases where an employee’s driving/safety performance is below standard and where other methods have not led to improved performance. A copy will be placed on the employee’s personal file and will be included within the annual appraisal. Serious breaches of this policy could lead to dismissal. Local partnerships with governments, local authorities and civil society. Michelin involves national road safety players (schools, the police), signs local charters and collaborates with any associations which deal with road safety. As a part of its road safety actions for young people, Michelin targets three age brackets and is committed to educating young people about their safety at every step of their discovery of the road. According to the WHO, road crashes are the leading cause of death among young people (10-24 years old). 176

Children (6-13): raising young pedestrians’/cyclists’ road safety awareness in schools and by organizing activities like “Junior Bikes,” “Pedibus,” “Hallo Auto,” “Play House” and “Michelin Road Safety classrooms”. Teens (13-18): raising awareness about motorized 2-wheel vehicles, e.g. helmet use and road safety rules. Young adults (18-25): raising young drivers’ awareness and providing training (through driving schools, handbook publishers, training aids and professional training). The first world Youth NGO for Road Safety (YOURS) was launched in January 2010. Michelin supports this WHO initiative and provides young people with the means to keep themselves safe. The goal is to create an international network of young road safety players to promote sharing and collaboration. Junior Bike. Junior Bike activities, which are held across Europe, aim to help young cyclists learn the rules of the road. Michelin Junior Bike began in Italy in 1998 and has grown to include events throughout France, Poland and now, Canada. It is estimated that more than 200,000 children have participated in Michelin Junior Bike in Europe since its inception. Michelin Junior Bike is open to children aged five to 11 and registered participants receive a free bicycle helmet, goodie bag and the chance to win great prizes. Children will have an opportunity to have their bicycle inspected in the Michelin Junior Bike garage by a local bike shop/cycling club before heading out on the course. “Achtung Auto !” In partnership with the German automobile club, ADAC and OPEL, Michelin organizes activities to teach children about the importance of braking distance and seat-belt use.

177

School activities. Michelin informs schoolchildren of the dangers of the road, not least by providing teaching aids and games. The «Fill Up with Air» operation: Michelin teams explain the importance of correct tire pressure to drivers. They test tire pressure and re-inflate the tires if necessary. Raising awareness about helmets. Michelin is committed to protecting vulnerable road users via campaigns to make them aware of the importance of wearing a helmet. Young drivers’ training. Teenagers increase their driving experience by learning best practices in real situations with experienced teachers. The safest route. Michelin has released a fun and educational program for children, which uses a paper chase to teach children that «the one who chooses the best route is the winner.» The players are encouraged to think about their own behavior while improving their knowledge of traffic rules. Drivers’ training campaigns aimed at young drivers to encourage safer, more responsible driving. 3. Michelin’s international commitments in road safety ROSYPE. Michelin supports Road Safety for Young People in Europe (ROSYPE).The general objective of the project is to launch a European-wide road safety awareness and education campaign for road users between the age of 6 and 25. The project aims at influencing young road user's behavior by new teaching approaches, new information technologies and public awareness campaigns. The proposal focuses on the most vunerable classes of road-users and is targeting a public still open to behavior changes.

178

YOURS. In 2009, the WHO founded the Youth for Road Safety (YOURS), the first global youth non-governmental organization (NGO) specifically focused on road safety. YOURS is a unique global youth led organization that acts to keep young people safe on the world’s roads. Michelin is a key-partner and involved in YOURS ever since the idea of such an organization arose. GRSP and GRSI. The GRSP (Global Road Safety Partnership) is a partnership of private companies, the public sector and NGOs who are working together for a sustainable reduction in road accidents in developing and emerging countries. Michelin became a member in 2003 and has chaired the GRSP since 2007. In 2004, the GRSP launched the Global Road Safety Initiative (GRSI) to focus its efforts on 5 major risk factors in three areas: China, the ASEAN and Brazil. This five-year program was created at the initiative of seven of the largest auto and oil industry companies, including Michelin. The GRSP, which believes that safe mobility is a key to economic development, is now continuing its efforts and success in a second phase (GRSI II, 2010-2014). The WHO. The WHO invited Michelin to join and contribute to the United Nations Road Safety Collaboration (UNRSC) in 2007. Michelin took part in the launch of the First Global Road Safety Week in 2007. Challenge Bibendum. Created in 1998, Challenge Bibendum aims at bringing together all the leading players in the automotive world to provide them with insight and an indepth understanding on clean and safe mobility for the future. Several round tables are specifically devoted to public and private sector contributions to road safety improvement. 179

The European Commission. The European Commission supports and co-funds Michelin’s commitment for road safety for young people through the ROSYPE project (Road Safety for Young People in Europe launched in June 2009) which aims to initiate road safety activities for 730,000 young Europeans.

180

Appendix 7 The Network of Employers for Traffic Safety (NETS)
NETS was chartered in 1989 as a non-profit NGO. NETS is an employer-led public/private partnership dedicated to global road safety. In support of this goal, NETS’ provides road safety programs and services to employers worldwide. NETS members participate in an annual and comprehensive road safety benchmark program. It is global in scope and includes all vehicle types, including light, medium, heavy and 2 and 3-wheeled motorized. The 2010 report includes 400,000 vehicles, 13 billion kilometers, and 102 countries. The report provides comparative crash rates, in addition to program elements, such as distracted driving policies. The benchmark report also notes the program elements shared by the respondents with the lowest crash rates. In addition to the annual benchmark program, NETS conducts an annual safe driving campaign called Drive Safely Work Week. It is held the first week in October. NETS offers a free comprehensive toolkit to help companies address distracted driving and improve the driving safety of employees, employee family members and the members of the community in which the organization operates. NETS works with US and global organizations to further its road safety mission. NETS is a member of the UN Road 181

Safety Collaboration and a committed proponent of the Decade of Action for Road Safety, 2011-2010. Also, NETS partners with the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to produce traffic safety campaigns and is closely associated with the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). For more information about NETS, please visit www.trafficsafety,.org.

182

Appendix 8 Praising Best Practice in Road Safety ‘At’ Work and ‘To’ Work
“Mobilising knowledge to create work-related road safety leadership.” Using the roads is a necessary part of everyone’s daily business, increasingly for work-related purposes. It is therefore unacceptable that an ordinary activity leads to an incredibly high level of injury and death. The European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) launched PRAISE in 2009 - a 3 year project addressing all safety aspects of driving ‘at’ work and driving ‘to’ work. Its aim is to “praise” best practices in order to help employers secure high road safety standards for their employees. PRAISE aims to: – advance the need for work-related Road Safety Management and provide the know-how to employers who must take on that challenge. – raise the work-related road safety standards of EU Member States and carry out advocacy work at the EU level: workrelated road safety is an area of road safety policy that needs renewed political commitment. – communicate the message that work-related road safety should include road safety ‘at’ work (driving on duty) but also road safety ‘to’ work (commuting). http://www.etsc.eu/PRAISE.php 183

Appendix 9 Road Safety Management at Renault
Road safety management at Renault is an integral part of the overall road safety policy that the company has been promulgating for the last 50 years. It is built around the five key pillars – Raise awareness; Prevent; Correct; Protect; Rescue. Renault’s road safety management policy goes well beyond legal obligations and as such is tangible proof of the company’s corporate social responsibility commitment and its 3-P approach - people, planet and profit. In 2001, the Group’s executive committee confirmed its commitment to promoting road safety within the company by nominating a steering committee dedicated to the development and deployment of fleet safety management. 2003 was also a milestone year for employee road safety management: – Renault and the French Minister for Transport signed a partnership charter confirming the Group’s commitment to contribute to improving driver behaviour and awareness and to the active promotion of vehicle safety across the entire model range. – Renault, the National Interministerial Secretary for road safety and the Director of Occupational Health at the National Health Insurance Fund for salaried workers co-

184

signed a charter promoting road safety management for Renault employees. – The employees’ road safety charter was distributed to all group staff worldwide, accompanied by a letter from the CEO inviting all staff to become road safety ambassadors. – An annual road safety forum was initiated on all Renault sites, animated by external and internal experts. – The number of road safety courses was increased to enable more staff to benefit from training. In 2004, an e-learning training program was launched and a further 1,500 staff were trained on road safety. In the same year, the Group set up a dedicated Road Safety Policy Department to coordinate both internal and external safety policy. The department, which has since become an integral part of the Group’s CSR department, is headed up by a medical Doctor with over 30 years experience in road safety, accident investigation and rehabilitation. The 5 pillars of road safety at Renault Raise awareness. Making each road user a road safety actor. In addition to its road safety charters and in-house forums, Renault also deploys a certain number of road safety actions for its staff, suppliers and for the general public: – Car and motorcycle safety training course for staff – Car-sharing scheme with internet and recent smart phone application pilot project – Worldwide child road safety education programmes (11 million children in 26 countries) – Eco-safe driving schools 185

– Fleet customer driver training programmes – Global Road Safety Partnership and Global Road Safety Initiative to promote road safety in low- and middle-income countries – Driver training included in supplier selection criteria Prevent. Alerting the driver and helping him in his driving task. Prevention is helping the driver anticipate risks. Renault vehicles include safety systems which encourage safe driving (speed limiters, seat belt reminders…), automate certain functions (headlights, wipers, tyre pressure monitoring…) and improve visibility (xenon headlights, bending light system…). Correct. Providing driving aids for difficult and emergency situations. Correction helps the driver maintain control of the vehicle in emergency situations. This includes vehicle systems such as Antilock Braking System, Emergency Brake Assist, Electronic Stability Control… Protect. Giving maximum protection for all road users. Vehicle crashworthiness and passive safety equipment such as airbags, seat-belt pretensioners and load limiters are the keys to occupant protection. To date, Renault is the car manufacturer with the greatest number of Euro NCAP 5-star vehicles. Rescue: Improving first responder effectiveness in the event of a crash. Renault engineers work with the emergency services to minimise intervention time in the event of a crash. Renault provides vehicles and expertise to the first

186

responder training services for occupant extraction training and improvement. Together, these 5 pillars provide a comprehensive programme to inform, educate and care for people before and while learning to share the road with others, during adult life as road users and not least in the event of emergency and accident situations. Although the legal, social and societal obligations may differ between employee, customer and general road user protection, as may the costs and the potential positive and negative outcomes, the framework remains the same. The business Case As can be seen from the graph below, Renault Group has shown a constant downwards trend in the number of commuter travel accidents since 2000. In 2009, group figures were 50% lower than the national average and 40% lower than the average for the metalworking industry to which the group is affiliated. Renault Ile de France – A business case study of fleet safety management measures French occupational health and safety law differentiates between road safety management for travel to and from work and for travel for work. Renault fleet safety initiatives cover both. They can be divided into two broad categories: – Technical and organisational measures to reduce risk exposure 187

– Training and awareness measures to incite behavioural change

Table 15: Commuter Travel Accident Trend

1. Organisation The examples given below demonstrate the road safety risk management policy set up for Renault’s Ile de France manufacturing and tertiary sites. Although based on common guidelines, road safety actions are tailored to meet the specific factors identified from risk and accident analysis on and around each site.

188

1.1 Technical and organisational measures to reduce risk exposure - Reducing the need to travel and optimising travel planning 1.1.1 Travel management Flexible working day start and finish times Real-time traffic information on the Renault server Video/audio conferencing facilities Telework 1.1.2 Infrastructure management: Site access roads are adapted to suit increased vehicular traffic. Separated travel routes for pedestrian and vehicular traffic Horizontal and vertical markings installed in and around sites (lane markings, sign pots, speed bumps…) Traffic flow management on Renault sites Snow and ice management throughout the sites 1.1.2 Company transport management Car parking capacity corresponds to needs. Easy access parking spaces reserved for the physically disabled. Chartered buses from mainline train stations Shuttle buses and on-site car pool Company car pool for travelling for work Car-sharing web portal Taxi service 189

Public transport policy for long trips Over night accommodation policy Prohibition to use motorised two-wheelers when travelling for work 1.1.4 Grey fleet management Preferential pricing agreement for new cars Subsidised vehicle maintenance and repair Vehicle lease plan 1.1.5 Services available on-site (varies according to sites) Restaurants and refectories (cafeteria, coffee shops and restaurants). All meals are subsidised. Travel agency and ticket office Dry cleaners Banking and ATM facilities Car sales and maintenance Health insurance Social services and legal advice Language centres 1.1.6 Additional services Housing planning Temporary accommodation near sites Preferential home loan agreements 1.2. Training and behavioural change awareness measures to incite

Long-term road safety prevention planning with local transport and land management agencies

190

Compulsory and/or voluntary advanced driver training for staff E-learning road safety programmes Annual road safety forums Supplier road safety training audit In-house improvement suggestion competition – Road safety management included in the challenge 2. Ile de France business case 2.1 National Health Insurance Fund for salaried workers rebate scheme French occupational health and safety law differentiates between road safety management for travel to and from work and for travel for work. Because of the size of each Renault site (over 200 staff), National Health Insurance fund contributions are calculated using the declared injury costs for a given reference period (usually years n-2 to n-4). This includes the costs of travelling for work. On the other hand, the contribution for travelling to and from work is based on a flat-rate and does not take into account real safety performance. French occupational health and safety law does however allow companies to reduce the base rate used to calculate their contribution for commuter travel risk. In order to benefit from this rebate, companies must provide a detailed report outlining the various prevention actions that have been deployed and explaining to what extent they decrease the commuter risk. Quantitative data and expenditure must also be included in the report, as well as the opinions of company

191

Committee for Hygiene, Safety and Working Conditions, composed of employees’ representatives. For 2010, the National Health Insurance Fund contribution for commuter travel amounted to 28% of the overall contribution for work accidents and occupational disease. Due to the scope and the importance of preventive actions undertaken, Renault’s Ile de France sites received a 20% rebate. This is the highest rebate for commuter travel of all Ile de France companies. Overall road safety investments by the Company’s Occupational Safety and Health department amount to 1.4 million Euros per year for the Ile de France region. At Renault, the majority of the sum generated through the National Health Insurance Fund rebate scheme is reinvested in road safety. In 2010, for an overall Ile de France staff of 21,584, only 1,794 working days were lost through travel accidents, of which 1,672 were due to accidents travelling to and from work and only 22 when travelling for work. 2.2 Indirect costs As a rough indicator, it can be considered that indirect costs such as replacing absent staff, training… cost approximately 3 times direct costs.

192

The social case Renault’s road safety management programme follows the two main criteria of the Group’s overall prevention programme: Protecting staff health Proposing motivating working conditions Apart from the indirect costs linked to hiring and training replacement staff, the day to day working environment and staff motivation are also key factors for productivity and ultimately the bottom line, profit. By creating safe and convivial working conditions, including travel to and from work, employers directly influence staff motivation. Although it is possible to quantify the social benefits of staff protection and motivation programmes for an overall prevention programme, specific details are not available for the road safety management aspects. The societal case Under the “raise awareness” umbrella, Renault runs or participates in a multitude of societal road safety programmes aimed at improving road user knowledge and awareness of the key road safety risk factors and their possible countermeasures. These programmes range from child education programmes to governmental level knowledge transfer and capacity building projects. Although not all societal programmes have built-in impact measurement methodologies, targeting prevalent risk factors, as identified by national or international databases and the main lead agencies such as WHO, UNSRSC, GRSP etc… 193

ensures that these societal programmes are reaching the right user groups and risk factors. It is hoped, and where possible proven, that raising awareness on road safety issues will forge or change current and future road user behaviour towards a safer use of the roads. Where activities target local or national authorities, the goal is to raise awareness as to the importance of dealing with road safety in order to make the structural changes necessary to limit and then reduce the death and injury toll on the roads. There are two main benefits for companies engaged in societal road safety programmes. The first concerns those that are run in the towns and cities around company facilities. Here there is a direct benefit for staff and their families through the reduction of accident risk through road user awareness, road safety legislation development, policing, post-crash care… The second benefit is more in terms of corporate citizenship and its positive effect on brand image. At a local level companies are seen to be helping develop safety in the communities in which they are installed. At a national or international level, companies become part of the bigger road safety picture. Examples of Renault’s societal programmes are given below: – Safety For All – An umbrella programme for several child and youth road safety programmes, including the largest privately funded road safety awareness programme for primary and secondary school children, founded by Renault in 2000. To date 11 million children in 26 countries have received safety education and materials. 194

– “10 de conduite jeunes” – A secondary school road safety and driver training programme, founded 15 years ago by Renault, Groupama Insurance, Total and the French National Gendarmerie. – Global Road Safety Partnership – A partnership of governments, governmental agencies, private companies and civil society to address road safety in low- and middleincome countries. GRSP is currently active in over 20 countries worldwide. Renault has been a member since 2005. – Global Road Safety Initiative – The largest ever private sector investment in road safety in low- and middle-income countries. Renault has been a member since 2005. – Car+ - A vehicle safety system and safe driving initiation course for fleet customers, in partnership with the Ecole de Conduite Française driving school. – Renault advanced driver training schools – Currently in place in Poland and Brazil. According to the tax laws in place in different countries, some of the above philanthropic actions can create substantial tax breaks when deployed and funded through the required channels. This of course assumes that they are indeed genuine philanthropic actions and not disguised sponsoring. Conclusion People, planet and profit – road safety management is a key ingredient of Renault’s CSR programme. Over and above the legal requirements dictated by Health and Safety or Highway Code legislation, road safety management makes good social, societal and business sense. The 195

examples given above demonstrate how proactive road safety management can be used to develop corporate image, protect and motivate staff, reduce death and injury on the roads and generate funding to be reinvested in road safety (or other) activities.

196

Appendix 10 Road Safety in Shell64 Company overview
Who are we? Shell is a global group of energy and petrochemical companies. Our aim is to meet the energy needs of society, in ways that are economically, socially and environmentally viable, now and in the future. Our headquarters are in The Hague, the Netherlands, and our Chief Executive Officer is Peter Voser. The parent company of the Shell group is Royal Dutch Shell plc, which is incorporated in England and Wales. Our strategy seeks to reinforce our position as a leader in the oil and gas industry in order to provide a competitive shareholder return while helping to meet global energy demand in a responsible way. In Upstream we focus on exploring for new oil and gas reserves and developing major projects where our technology and know-how adds value to the resource
64 General Disclaimer: The companies in which Royal Dutch Shell plc directly and indirectly owns investments are separate entities. In this article, the expression “Shell” is sometimes used for convenience where references are made to companies within the Shell group or to the group in general. Likewise, the words “we”, “us” and “our” are also used to refer to Shell companies in general or those who work for them. These expressions are also used where no useful purpose is served by identifying specific companies.

197

holders. In Downstream our emphasis remains on sustained cash generation from our existing assets and selective investments in growth markets. Our Project and Technology organisation provides technical services and technology capability in upstream and downstream activities. Road safety in Shell. Getting road safety right has long been a priority for us, and a serious challenge. We have the largest network of service stations in our industry. Shell staff and contractors drive more than 1.3 billion kilometres each year, around 100 times around the globe every day. We are making progress through our Group-wide road safety standards and our proactive driver safety programmes. We are also working in partnerships to help set industry standards and pool skills and resources. Managing Road Safety risks. Whether it is transporting fuel to one of our customers, delivering equipment to construction projects or simply travelling to meetings, road transportation is integral to our business. Life-Saving Rules. Our mandatory 12 Life-Saving Rules reinforce what employees and contractors must know and do to prevent serious injury or fatality. Four of the Life-Saving Rules are related to road safety: – Wear your seat belt – Follow the prescribed Journey Management Plan – While driving, do not use your phone and do not exceed speed limits – No alcohol or drugs while working or driving The Life-Saving Rules are mandatory for employees and contractors driving on business for Shell. If they break a rule, employees face disciplinary action up to termination of employment, while contractors can be removed from the site and barred from future work with Shell. 198

Road Safety Expertise Centre. In 2008 we implemented a dedicated Road Safety Expertise Centre charged with implementing a Group-wide road safety programme. The Centre has developed Road Safety Manuals which set minimum simplified road standards for Shell and its contractors worldwide. Since the implementation of a dedicated Road Safety Expertise Centre, simplified road safety standards and the Life-Saving Rules, we have seen significant improvements in our road safety performance with over a 30% reduction in the total number of motor vehicle incidents. Standards and specifications. To ensure more awareness around road safety, we have a minimum set of road safety standards for Shell employees and our contractors. These standards are focused on five key areas: 1. Leadership and Commitment 2. Management Controls 3. Vehicle Specifications 4. Journey Management 5. Driver Behaviour 1. Leadership and Commitment. Our road safety commitment begins with the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) setting expectations for compliance and performance improvement. Key management personnel are responsible for implementing improvement programmes and ensuring compliance. 2. Management Controls. Management controls are in place to reduce the risks associated with road transport. The controls are aimed at reducing exposure (kilometres driven), prevention of road transport incidents and mitigating 199

consequences of road transport incidents. All incidents are investigated and key learnings shared to prevent reoccurrence. 3. Vehicle Specifications. We have standardised global specifications for our vehicles and equipment. These specifications are often much stricter than those prevailing within the countries where we operate. All vehicles are properly maintained and inspected prior to setting out on journeys to mitigate incidents caused by equipment failure. 4. Journey Management. Journey Management is a process for planning and executing necessary road transport journeys safely. A key aspect of our road risk reduction strategy is to question the need for journeys. Always look to eliminate the journey, use alternative safer modes of transport or combine journeys with others. Where the journey is deemed necessary, all risks are assessed and a Journey Management Plan effected. This plan typically includes the route, timing, rest periods and locations, communications, emergency response and security arrangements. 5. Driver Behaviour. We expect proper road safety behaviour to be common practice. We employ people with the desired competencies and assure they can meet the job requirements. We have a standard set of requirements, set clear expectations, and teach defensive driving techniques. Drivers are trained to recognise hazards, mitigate them, or alternatively take actions to minimise their consequences. It involves both a theoretical and practical part and is a recurring aspect in the development of drivers working for Shell. Additional training focuses on key road transport risks as prevention of rollover incidents, driver fatigue and driver fitness to work. 200

We use in-vehicle monitoring systems (IVMS) to help our drivers improve their performance and also to recognise good driver performance. The system tracks actions such as speeding, harsh braking, sharp acceleration, driving hours, and use of seat belts. IVMS show drivers how they can drive safer and use fuel more economically. Road Safety in Projects. Project specific controls are put in place to mitigate road safety risks in projects. A number of our large projects have successfully reduced the amount of road travel needed. For example, during construction at a chemical complex expansion we provided accommodation for personnel on the project site. For other projects we use buses to transport workers to reduce vehicle journeys, and use marine vessels and rail cars to get vehicles and equipment off the roads. Road Safety and the Community. Every year, 1.3 million people are killed and up to 50 million injured in road traffic accidents worldwide. More than 90% of these casualties occur in low- and middle-income countries. In May 2011 the World Health Organisation launched the UN Decade of Action for Road Safety. It includes a plan that encourages countries and communities to increase action to save lives on the world's roads. Shell supports this initiative and already takes a range of approaches to help improve road safety. We work with other companies to help set standards for the transport industry, share skills and resources, and influence governments to advance road safety legislation and raise safety standards for vehicles and drivers. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP). Through the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP) we have developed a set of Land 201

Transportation Safety Recommended Practices for our industry. We believe that following these practices can significantly reduce road traffic injuries and fatalities. They can be used by OGP member companies in their own operations and with their contractors, for example when deciding which companies are qualified to bid on contracts. Global Road Safety Partnership (GRSP). Shell is a member of the Global Road Safety Partnership (GRSP). Through the GRSP we work with international agencies, companies and governments on practical projects to reduce road accidents. Shell participates in several individual country partnerships that drive improvements in road infrastructure, driver behaviour, public education and enforcement. Global Road Safety Initiative (GRSI). Global Road Safety Initiative (GRSI), established by the GRSP, aims to improve road safety in targeted developing countries. Shell chairs and partly funds the initiative. The GRSI is a five-year programme to improve road safety in Brazil, China and member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). For example, a GRSI-funded campaign was a catalyst in the introduction of a law to make motorcyclists wear helmets in Vietnam. Since the law was introduced, there were nearly 1,600 fewer motorcycle deaths on the roads in that country than the year before. Shell manages social impacts arising from business activities and in addition, it actively engages with communities through social investment initiatives that maximises the benefits arising from our presence. As part of our commitment to being a ‘good neighbour’ we believe that

202

Shell, and the wider business sector, play a vital role in supporting broader societal improvements. Social Investment. Our social investment projects aim to benefit society in tangible ways and be sustainable beyond Shell’s support. In 2010, we updated our global social investment strategy, which supports initiatives that benefit society and relate to our business activities, such as road safety and local enterprise development. We have put considerable effort into preventing road accidents in our operations and are working with industry, governments and non-governmental organisations to help address this challenge globally. Shell is also a sponsor of the UN Decade of Action for Road Safety. We also work in partnerships with local and national governments to help build skills that meet development needs.

203

Appendix 11 Driving for Better Business – Champion Case Study – TNT Express
Company overview. TNT Express provides a unique combination of on-demand, time-sensitive, door-to-door international and national express delivery services. From a leading position in Europe, we offer our customers a global coverage for their express distribution needs through our depots and offices around the world. Our mission is to exceed our customers’ expectations in the transfer of their goods and documents around the world. We deliver value to our customers by providing the most reliable and efficient solutions through delivery networks. We lead the industry by: Instilling pride in our people Creating value for our shareholders Sharing responsibility for our world

Nature of operations and driving activity. Worldwide, TNT Express moves an average of 4.4 million parcels, documents and pieces of freight a week. TNT Express continually optimises its air and road networks in Europe, Australia, Asia, South America, and the Middle East, connecting international routes to domestic road networks.

204

Table 16: TNT Express

TNT Express moves as many packages as possible by road, using its fleet of approximately 26,600 vehicles. Across Europe, TNT Express has 750 trucks on international routes every day, and 1,200 international drivers that drive the equivalent of around the world more than 56 times a week. The TNT Express main European road hub is located in the Dutch town of Duiven, close to the German border. TNT Express is transferring this unique expertise to Southeast Asia, India, the Middle East, and South America. Its 5,000 mile-long ‘Asia Road Network’, which connects Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam and the South of China, offers a cost-effective, yet fast alternative to air transport and sea freight. Similarly, TNT has set up a 3,000-kilometres long South American road network, which goes from São Paulo to Santiago de Chile and beyond. TNT Express drivers carry out both long distance (linehaul) driving and short distance (‘pick-up and delivery’ - PUD) driving activities within a diverse range of

205

urban/rural and geographical settings, and varied road conditions and road infrastructures. Linehaul driving usually takes place within large trucks (>7.5 tonnes) on long distance, national or international routes using major roads/highways. Linehaul drivers are professional, commercial drivers and are normally regulated by strict driving and rest hours. PUD drivers carry out their activities in small trucks or vans (<7.5 tonnes) on local delivery routes on urban or rural roads. Distances travelled are short and there are frequent stops to pick-up or deliver consignments to our customers, so there is a mix of driving and non-driving activities. Organisational Structure. TNT express is a global player with fully owned operations in 64 countries and deliveries to over 200 countries within the following regional structure: Northern Europe Southern Europe, Middle East and Africa Americas Asia Pacific

Headquartered in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, TNT Express employs approximately 75,000 people, runs 26,600 vehicles, and flies a fleet of about 40 aircraft. It operates 2,376 depots and sorting centres. A divisional Corporate Responsibility (CR) function provides the strategic direction and sets minimum global standards for effective health, safety and environmental (HSE) management, including road safety. However, the responsibility for managing the day-to-day risks and impacts remains with the regions and countries that create them. A network of CR/HSE 206

Champions is deployed within each region/country to advise and assist on effective implementation of these standards. Work-related road safety policy and procedures (key points). TNT Express recognises that work-related road safety is a significant business risk. As part of our corporate responsibility strategy, we have therefore developed and implemented a specific road safety management system, which identifies minimum global standards for road safety management. The road safety management system is cascaded to each of our operating units worldwide and they are responsible for implementing the management system requirements into each of their functional areas. A ‘Road Safety Policy Statement’ is included in the management system, which contains the following commitment: “TNT Express is a global transport company operating thousands of vehicles in local communities around the world. We fully recognise the global challenge relating to road safety and the positive role TNT Express can play to reduce risks. TNT Express is committed to minimising road related accidents and risks by implementing best practice tools and techniques. TNT Express seeks to safeguard its employees, visitors, contractors and other members of the public who may be affected by our activities.” The road safety management system and supporting policies provide operational management with a minimum set of standards to manage the risks associated with driving for work. The role of each operating unit is to support the management system approach and to identify the links and dependencies with their devolved responsibilities. A ‘gap analysis’ approach is used with a supporting tool that enables each operating unit to translate and implement the divisional 207

road safety management system into each of their functional areas. Each operating unit therefore retains the responsibility and ownership for managing road safety risks and for translating these standards into operational practices. The road safety management system is periodically reviewed and revised as part of our continual improvement process, but the core standards are retained and grouped into the following three essential elements: Driver management Vehicle management Road safety management

The road safety management system provides minimum standards, but in many countries TNT Express has implemented ‘best practice’ approaches. For example, TNT Express UK & Ireland has adopted a safe vehicle, safe driver and safe journey approach: Safe vehicle: high vehicle specifications with safety enhancements, including reversing cameras stringent planned preventative maintenance programmes robust defect and repair procedures new vehicle awareness provided by a national team of accredited driving assessors

-

Safe driver: stringent selection process using driver risk profiling assessment tool - driver safety charter - fit for employment health assessment 208

-

on-road driving assessment by accredited driving assessor ongoing health surveillance safe and fuel efficient driver training performance review during appraisals education on driver fatigue performance management of high risk drivers discussion of accident experience during depot driver meetings recognition of accident free performance comprehensive investigation of accidents to identify corrective and preventive action safety awareness campaigns focusing on accident prevention measures Safe journey: pre-journey vehicle checks computer-based route planning tool provision of advance severe weather warnings information on accident black spots, road works and traffic congestion

-

Similar best practice approaches have been adopted in many other countries, for example: TNT Australia has introduced a documented “Heavy vehicle fatigue management programme” for linehaul (long distance) journeys (i.e. specific linehaul route risk assessments, driver’s rosters and trip scheduling, alcohol and drug screening and driver training on fatigue management)

209

-

-

TNT Benelux and other countries are currently piloting and implementing various telematics systems, as it is recognised that real-time data systems such as this can play a positive role in improving driver road safety and fuel efficiency performance. TNT France has made effective use of a driving simulator to provide safe and fuel efficient driving training to not only commercial drivers and company car drivers, but all employees, as it is recognised that road safety does not stop within the boundaries of our own operations.

These ‘best practice’ approaches are shared amongst the global community to help other countries to learn from experience and to continually improve their road safety performance. Work-related road safety guidance for drivers (key points). Driver management is one of the core elements of the TNT Express road safety management system approach. The overall aim is to positively influence driver behaviour and improve driver performance by integrating safe (and fuel efficient) driving behaviour into our daily operations. A sustainable framework is used to ensure that TNT drivers’ competence and performance is continually maintained and improved. The core elements of the driver management approach include: Driver selection and recruitment process (e.g. competency-based interviews, driving licence validity/endorsement checks, driver health assessments)

210

-

-

Driver competence assessments (e.g. risk profiling assessment tools, on-road driving assessments) Driver training and development (e.g. driver induction process, safe/fuel efficient driving training, risk-based training interventions) Driver recognition (e.g. global driver recognition scheme, global driving competition – “Drive Me Challenge”)

These core elements are supported by the following enabling processes: Performance management (e.g. key performance measures included in management bonus scheme) Communications (e.g. driver handbooks, road safety charter/pledge, posters, internal newsletters/bulletins, external awards)

The ‘Drive Me Challenge’ is an annual driving competition that provides the ultimate recognition for the best drivers in the whole of TNT. The initiative was first launched in 2007 to create engagement and excitement around the issue of fuel efficiency and reduction of CO2 emissions, but has now been expanded to include all elements of a TNT driver’s role, including road safety and customer experience. TNT drivers act as ambassadors for the TNT brand, and drivers that consistently display the correct behaviours in all these elements should be recognised and rewarded. National competitions are held within each region and winning drivers team up with their Operations Director to compete in the global final at a high profile company event. 211

A global ‘driver recognition’ scheme has been developed and implemented to recognise the professionalism of our drivers and the vital role they play in reducing road traffic accidents, injuries and deaths whilst driving for work. It complements and is linked to the Drive Me Challenge, and is a simple scheme consisting of three award levels for those drivers that do not have any blameworthy (at fault) road traffic accidents. Drivers are awarded a TNT Express Road Safety Pin (bronze, silver, gold) and Certificate of Achievement at each level. The scheme has been successfully rolled out in both UK & Ireland and Australia and has been very positively received by our drivers. Specific examples of procedures. TNT Express aims to achieve best practice road safety performance everywhere in the company and the managing directors of all operating units are therefore required to: promote, provide and maintain safe working environments deploy the TNT Express road safety management system and proactively encourage our subcontractors to adopt similar practices put in place suitable organisations that plan, implement, monitor and continuously review the road safety management system create a positive climate ensuring everyone’s commitment to sound road safety practices ensure effective communication, consultation, cooperation and involvement takes place throughout the company in relation to road safety issues ensure all employees are equipped and competent to carry out their road safety responsibilities 212

-

-

-

-

identify and immediately minimise evolving road safety risks audit, review and continuously improve road safety performance achieve and maintain the OHSAS 18001 standard as external verification of our road safety standards

Some key elements of the road safety management system are described below: Road safety management: - Each operating unit is required to carry out generic risk assessments of road safety risks within their locations and specific risk assessments must be conducted where there are higher risk activities, routes or locations. - Documented road safety objectives must be established and maintained at each relevant function and level as part of the overall health and safety objective setting process. - Key performance indicators must be measured, evaluated and analysed at appropriate local and/or regional levels to enable continual improvement activities to be identified. - Audits must be performed at relevant functions and levels to systematically and critically evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the road safety management system. Driver management: - Drivers must pass an on road driving competency assessment by a TNT Express qualified driver or external assessor.

213

-

-

-

Drivers shall be reassessed following any blameworthy (at fault) road traffic accident. Drivers must receive adequate training to provide them with the knowledge, skill and competence related to road safety, including induction, safe/defensive driving, and driver fatigue. Drivers must be provided with a health assessment prior to or on commencement of employment. Driving licence checks must be carried out at least annually for commercial drivers and company car drivers. TNT Express has a strict zero tolerance policy that no employee presents themselves for work whilst they are under the influence of alcohol or non prescribed drugs.

Vehicle management: - Vehicle specifications must meet local legislative requirements and be fit for purpose. - Vehicles must have seat belts fitted for all available seats. - Vehicles and trailers must be inspected and serviced as part of a planned maintenance programme and in accordance with the manufacturers and/or legal requirements. - Drivers must carry out periodic inspections and checks to ensure the efficient operation and safety of their vehicle and report all defects. - The use of any hand held devices is prohibited at any time while driving including driving whilst on TNT Express or any other premises.

214

Auditing and review. Each operating unit is required to achieve external accreditation to the OHSAS 18001 standard for occupational health and safety management systems, and it must therefore audit, review and continuously improve road safety performance in accordance with these management system requirements. The divisional HSE function conducts periodic audits and/or support visits of individual operating units commensurate with their road safety performance levels. A road safety review group (or equivalent) must operate at operating unit/country level to support continuing implementation and effectiveness of the local road safety management system. These groups must consist of representatives from relevant functions to provide appropriate knowledge and authority to oversee road safety management. Performance measures. Key performance indicators are used to measure road safety performance at divisional, regional, operating unit/country, and depot/location level. The main KPI’s used are as follows: Blameworthy/non-blameworthy road traffic fatal accidents (involving TNT employees/vehicles) Sub-contractor road traffic fatal accidents Blameworthy road traffic incident rate per 100,000 km Lost time accident rate per 100 FTE

Data is collected from each operating unit/country on a monthly basis so that performance can be effectively measured, evaluated, analysed and reviewed. All data is assured annually by an external verifier. Safety improvement 215

targets for lost time accidents and blameworthy road traffic incidents are set and agreed with each operating unit/country on an annual basis based on their previous performance. A target setting tool is provided to facilitate this process which allows them to forecast performance based on previous data and trend analysis. The annual incentive scheme for the Board of Management and the bonus scheme for senior management also include health and safety performance targets as part of the non-financial target element. This process assists in making senior management truly accountable for their road (and workplace) safety performance. Many countries also include this in the scorecard for depot/location management (e.g. UK and Ireland). Accident reduction (as result of WRRS measures). TNT Express has always been very open and transparent about its road safety performance. All performance data is included within our annual Corporate Responsibility Reports, which are available on the TNT website http://group.tnt.com/aboutus/corporateresponsibility/index.as px. The introduction of the road safety management system and the continued focus on implementation of sustainable solutions has led to a gradual reduction in the blameworthy road traffic incident rate (any vehicle incident resulting in vehicle damage and/or personal injury). The lost time accident rate has also reduced significantly during the same period, although this covers injuries from both road and workplace accidents. This provides statistical evidence that the management system approach to road safety delivers tangible results. 216

However, following a series of major business acquisitions in India, China and Brazil in 2007-08, we experienced a significant increase in fatal road traffic accidents and quickly realised the consequence of operating on a much larger scale in emerging markets with little known infrastructures and specific road safety challenges. Our response to this was to provide direct focused support from the centre to assist in the development of detailed road safety action plans and sustainable solutions. This has led to a much improved performance with a reduction of approximately 50% in the number of fatal accidents in 2009. This focus will be maintained until we reach our zero fatal accident ambition. Financial and other benefits (as a result of WRRS measures). The divisional blameworthy road traffic incident rate per 100,000 km has continued to reduce steadily over the last few years as detailed below: The financial costs of road traffic incidents are collected at operating unit level, but they are not collated globally. However, it is known that the reduction in the blameworthy road traffic incident rate across the division has had obvious economic benefits as the direct and indirect costs of accidents are well documented and understood. Improved management of road safety risks has led to reduced vehicle damage costs, reduced repair and maintenance costs, reduced insurance premiums, etc and has also led to other associated benefits such as reduced fuel costs and improvements in operational efficiency. Table 17: Blameworthy road traffic accident rate

217

TNT UK & Ireland provides a very good example between 2007 and 2010 they are able to demonstrate the following performance improvements: 20% reduction in collision rate 25% or 730,000 Pounds Sterling reduction in paid and estimated cost

A detailed stakeholder analysis exercise on corporate responsibility has also identified that road safety is the key concern of our stakeholders and the company therefore has a direct business interest in managing road safety effectively to assist in the long-term success of the business. Lessons learned. TNT Express recognises that road safety is a management issue and therefore delegates clear responsibility and accountability for road safety performance through the management bonus scheme. TNT Express also recognises that its drivers act as ambassadors for the TNT brand and have a vital role to play in reducing road traffic accidents, injuries and deaths whilst driving for work. To be successful, however, requires long-term commitment and we recognise that there are still a number of challenges to be overcome. The improvements achieved in road safety performance so far are due to the following key success factors: 218

-

Top management commitment and leadership Stakeholder involvement Clear plan with realistic timelines and responsibilities Communicate effectively Expertise to support business Monitor performance Share learning and experience Continual focus

The biggest challenges for TNT Express have been to ensure universal and consistent application of these standards across all operating units, particularly in developing countries, where road infrastructures and safety standards are generally poor, and to ensure that subcontractors working for TNT Express also adopt similar road safety standards. We have also recognised that actions must be sustainable to deliver long term improvements in performance, and continual focus must be maintained in all core elements – vehicle, driver, journey and subcontractor management – to achieve our zero fatal accident ambition. Current and future developments. TNT Express will maintain and further improve its road safety performance by implementing the following measures: Keep focused on continuous improvement and zero fatal accident ambition. Support and encourage subcontractors to adopt equivalent road safety standards (through a defined subcontractor strategy). 219

-

-

-

Continue to provide focused support to India, China and Brazil to ensure effective implementation of road safety standards. Develop a divisional road safety standard to replace and update the current road safety management system. Monitor the status of the proposed ISO 39001 standard for road traffic safety management systems and evaluate its potential impact to the business. Support and participate in the first-ever UN Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020. Renew the TNT Express commitment to the EU Road Safety Charter. Maintain links with external stakeholders on road safety (e.g. Global Road Safety Partnership – see note below).

Note. TNT Express has recognised the value of partnerships to address the wider issue of road safety within both the developed and emerging economies worldwide. We are a member of the Global Road Safety Partnership (GRSP) which brings together governments and governmental agencies, the private sector and civil society to urgently address road safety issues, especially in low- and middleincome countries. We have been instrumental in helping to set up an India Road Safety Partnership along with GRSP, Fleet Forum, and the Confederation of Indian Industry.

220

221

Bibliography
– Aeron-Thomas A., Jacobs G. D., Sexton B., Gururaj G. and

Rahman F. , The involvement and impact of road crashes on the poor: Bangladesh and India case studies, TRL, 2004. http://www.grsproadsafety.org/themes/default/pdfs/The%20 Poor_final%20final%20report.pdf – Arrow, Kenneth J. (1962) “The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing”, in Review of Economic Studies. – Asian Development Bank, Road Safety Guidelines, 2003. http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Road-SafetyGuidelines/default.asp – Asian Development Bank, The cost of the road traffic accidents in Thailand, ADB-ASEAN Accident Costing Report AC9, 2005. http://www.adb.org/documents/reports/arrive-alive/costingreports – BAST, Volkswirtschaftliche Kosten durch traßenverkehrsunfälle in Deutschland, 2010. – Baum, Herbert / Esser, Klaus / Höhnscheid, Karl J., Volkswirtschaftliche Kosten und Nutzen des Verkehrs, 1998. – Business Partners for Development, Putting Partnering to Work, Washington, 2002. – CNAMTS, The French National Health Insurance Fund for Salaried Worker, 2006.

223

– Conférence européenne des ministres de transport, Oct.

2000, “Economic Evaluation of road traffic safety measures”, http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/europe/ecmt/roa dsafety/pdf/rt117e.pdf – Dandona Rakhi, Kumar G. Anil, Ameer Md. Abdul, Reddy G. Brahmananda, and Dandona Lalit, Underreporting of road traffic injuries to the police: results from two data sources in urban India, Injury Prevention, 2008. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2779560/ – Department for Transport, HSE, Think! Road safety; Driving at work, Managing work related road safety, September 2003. http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg382.pdf – DESTATIS (Statistisches Bundesamt, Fachreihe 8, reihe 7, Verkehrsunfälle, 2009. – Downing A., Accident costs in Indonesia. A review, TRL, 1997. http://www.transportlinks.org/transport_links/filearea/public ations/1_559_PA3303_1997.pdf – Murray Will, Driving for better business: case studies, http://www.drivingforbetterbusiness.com/casestudies/default .aspx – Murray Will, Driving for better business: The business case. http://www.fleetsafe.org/businesscase.aspx – Dykes R., et al., (2001) The Work-related Road Safety Task Group, Reducing at-work road traffic incidents: Report to

224

Government and the Health and Safety Commission, HMSO, London, 2001. – Eckhardt and Seitz, 1998. – Elvik R, The economics of road safety: investment pays. Lessons from road safety analyses in Norway and Sweden. Presentation at the ITF Road Safety Seminar, Paris 25-26 September 2008. – ETSC, A methodological approach to transport safety policies, Brussels, 2006. – ETSC, Preventing road accidents and injuries for the safety of employees (PRAISE project), An interview with DB Schenker, October 2009. http://www.etsc.eu/documents/PRAISE%20Fact%20Sheet1. pdf – ETSC, Preventing road accidents and injuries for the safety of employees (PRAISE project), An interview with Suckling transport, February 2010. http://www.etsc.eu/documents/PRAISE%20Fact%20Sheet% 202.pdf – ETSC (PRAISE project), Preventing road accidents and injuries for the safety of employees, An interview with Fredsø Vognmandsforretning, June 2010. http://www.etsc.eu/documents/PRAISE%20Fact%20Sheet% 203.pdf – ETSC (PRAISE project), Preventing road accidents and injuries for the safety of employees, An interview with Transport for London, November 2010.

225

http://www.etsc.eu/documents/PRAISE%20Fact%20Sheet% 204.pdf – ETSC (PRAISE project), Reducing road safety driving for and to work in the EU, March 2010. http://www.etsc.eu/documents/Reducing%20Road%20Safet y%20Risk%20at%20Work%20EU%20Overview%20ETSC %202010_short.pdf – ETSC (PRAISE project), Preventing road accidents and injuries for the safety of employees, How can In-vehicle safety equipment improve road safety at work?, September 2009. http://www.etsc.eu/documents/PRAISE%20Report%201.pdf – ETSC (PRAISE project), Preventing road accidents and injuries for the safety of employees, Fit for road safety: From risk assessment to training, February 2010. http://www.etsc.eu/documents/PRAISE%20Report%202.pdf – ETSC (PRAISE project), Preventing road accidents and injuries for the safety of employees, Fitness to drive, May 2010. http://www.etsc.eu/documents/PRAISE%20Report%203.pdf – ETSC (PRAISE project), Preventing road accidents and injuries for the safety of employees, Safer commuting to work, November 2010. http://www.etsc.eu/documents/PRAISE%20Report%20(4).p df – ETSC, Assessing risk and setting targets in transport safety programs, 2003, http://www.etsc.eu/documents/riskassess.pdf 226

– EU policies for road safety,

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/policy/ind ex_en.htm – “From A to B” The ACFO (The Premiere Organisation for Fleet Operators) guide to UK journey planning. www.acfo.org – Ghee, C. Silcock, D. Astrop and Jacobs, “Socio-economic aspects of road accidents in developing countries”, TRL report, 247, 1997, Crowthorne, TRL Limited. http://www.transportlinks.org/transport_links/filearea/publications/1_332_TRL24 7_-_Socio-economic_aspects_of_road_ accidents _in_developing_countries.pdf – GRSP, Results and recommendations for businesses, http://www.grsproadsafety.org/themes/default/pdfs/Results% 20and%20Recommendations%20for%20Businesses.pdf – GRSP, Results and recommendations for developing country governments, http://www.grsproadsafety.org/themes/default/pdfs/Results% 20and%20Recommendations%20for%20Developing%20Co untry.pdf – INSEE (National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies) www.insee.fr/ – International Transport Forum http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/ – iRAP, Kenya results, 2009 http://irap.net/media/30657/irap_kenya_results_2009.pdf

227

– iRAP, Road deaths in developing countries, the challenge

of dysfunctional roads, http://irap.net/media/1508/IRAPDysfunctionalRoadsPaper.p df – iRAP, Safe roads for development, 2009 http://irap.net/media/22418/safe-roads-for-development.pdf – iRAP, Saving lives through investment in safer roads: the iRAP partnership, http://irap.net/media/10201/irap%20safer%20roads_reaaa.pd f – iRAP, True costs road crashing, valuing life and the cost of a serious injury, http://irap.net/media/1511/iRAPValueoflifeseriousinjurypap er.pdf – G. Jacobs, A. Aeron-Thomas, Astrop, Estimating global road fatalities , TRL Report, 445. http://www.esafetysupport.org/download/eSafety_Activities/ Related_Studies_and_Reports/Estimating%20Global%20Ro ad%20Fatalities%20report,%20TRL.pdf – Kopits Elizabeth, Cropper Maureen, Traffic Fatalities and Economic growth, Policy Research working paper, The World Bank, Development research group, April 2003. – Lang, B., Delmonte, E. & Vandrevala, T. (2010). Development and evaluation of the Work-Related Road Safety, CD-ROM. TRL Published Project Report 346, Crowthorne, Berkshire – Latin NCAP http://www.latinncap.com/en/

228

– Le coût de l’insécurité routière en France en 2007,

http://www2.securiteroutiere.gouv.fr/IMG/Synthese/EA_EC O.pdf – Mclnerney and Smith, Saving lives though investment in safer roads: the iRAP partnership, 2009 – Micro Computer Accident Analysis package (MAAP) in Botswana. http://www.up.ac.za/dspace/bitstream/2263/6330/1/022.pdf – Mohan Dinesh, Road safety in less-motorized environments: future concerns, International journal of Epidemiology, 2002. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/31/3/527.full.pdf+html – Murray, “W Fleet First: What does it take to get SHEM practitioners interested in road safety: making the business case?”, Safety & Health Practitioner, Volume 27, Number 5, www.shponline.co.uk, May 2009, p78-80 – National Department of Transport, The Estimation of Unit Costs of road traffic accidents in South Africa, March 2004 http://www.arrivealive.co.za/document/FinalReportAccident Costs2002.pdf – NETS http://trafficsafety.org/
– NHTSA, The economic impact of motor vehicle crashes, Publication DOT HS 809 446, 2000. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2002. – NHTSA, The economic burden of traffic crashes on

employers: Costs by state and industry and by alcohol and restraint use (Publication DOT HS 809 682). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 2003. 229

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/airbags/EconomicBurde n/pages/WhatDoTCCost.html – Road Accidents in India, MORT&H, 2008. – Road Safety in Argentina, www.seguridadvial.gov.ar – Road Safety in Nigeria, www.frsc.gov.ng – Occupational Road Safety alliance, The business case http://www.orsa.org.uk/business/index.htm – OECD, International Transport Forum (2008). “Towards Zero. Ambitious Road Safety Targets and the Safe System Approach”, Joint Transport Research Centre, OECD/ITF, Paris. – Persson Ulf and Odegaar Knut, External Cost Estimates of Road Traffic Accidents. – An international Comparison, The Swedish institute of Health Economics, 1995 ROSEBUD, Thematic network, Deliverable WP%, December 2006. http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafety_library/publications/ rosebud_report_wp3_final_june_2004.pdf – Road Safe, Driving for work (in partnership with Driving for better Business). http://www.roadsafe.com/programmes/work.aspx – Romer, Paul M. (1986) “Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 94. – Rompe, 1998 – Royal Society for the prevention of accidents, Making the business case. http://www.rospa.com/occupationalsafety/adviceandinformat ion/business-case.aspx 230

– Runciman D., Partnering the State, in Partnership Futures,

Issue 1, 2003. The Copenhagen Centre. – Safe Roads for Development, 2011, FIA Foundation, GRSP, gTKP, IRAP, IRF, WRA, World Bank. – Safer Roads Investment Plans: The iRAP Methodology. – Silcock Ross and TRL, Guidelines for Estimating the Cost of road Crashes in Developing Countries, May 2003, http://www.transportlinks.org/transport_links/filearea/public ations/1_807_R%207780.PDF – Solow Robert, “A contribution to the theory of economic growth”, The quarterly Journal of Economics, 1956. – Stewart and Townsend, There is more to “health and safety is good business” than avoiding unplanned costs? A study into the link between safety performance and business performance, http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Communication%20& %20Consumer%20Information/Articles/Associated%20Files /EconomicImpact2000.pdf – Trinh Thuy Anh, Trinh Tu Anh and Nguyen Xuan Dao, “The cost of road traffic accidents in Vietnam”, Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 2005: http://www.easts.info/on-line/proceedings_05/1923.pdf – The Business Case for managing Work-related Road Safety http://www.fleetsafe.org/businesscase.aspx – Tengs TO, Adams ME, Pliskin JS, et al (June 1995), Fivehundred life-saving interventions and their costeffectiveness. Risk Analysis.

231

– Tootill W. J. and Mackie A. M. (1995), “Transport

Supplementary Grant for safety schemes – local authorities schemes from 1992/93 allocations”, TRL Report, 127, Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne – TRL and ODA, Costing Road Accidents in Developing Countries, 1995 – TRL, Estimating global road fatalities, 2000, http://www.grsproadsafety.org/themes/default/pdfs/Estimatin g%20Global%20Road%20Fatalities%20%20full%20report.pdf – TRL, Improving road safety by reducing impaired driving in developing countries: a scoping study, 2003 http://www.grsproadsafety.org/themes/default/pdfs/Impaired %20driving%20final.pdf – TRL, Overseas road note 10: Costing accidents in developing countries , 1995 http://www.transportlinks.org/transport_links/filearea/public ations/1_707_Microsoft%20Word%20%20Overseas%20Road%20Note%2010.pdf – TRL, Review of road safety management practice: Final report, 2002, http://www.grsproadsafety.org/themes/default/pdfs/Road%2 0Safety%20Management%20-%20Full%20report.pdf – TRL, The involvement and impact of road crashes on the poor: Bangladesh and India case studies, 2000, http://www.grsproadsafety.org/themes/default/pdfs/The%20 Poor_final%20final%20report.pdf 232

– UK Department for Transport, Highways Economics Note

No.1: 2005, “Valuation of the Benefits of Prevention of Road Accidents and Casualties”, January 2007 – UN/E/CN.9/1998/2 – UNRSC, A decade of action for road safety, a brief planning document, http://www.who.int/roadsafety/Decade_of_action.pdf – Vanserschure 2006 – “What Do Traffic Crashes Cost?”, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/airbags/EconomicBurde n/pages/WhatDoTCCost.html – WHO et World Bank, World Report on Traffic Injury prevention, 2004 – WHO &ASIRT 2007, Faces behind the figures.
– WHO, Global Status Report on Road Safety, Time for Action, 2009.

233

White Paper for Road Safety Investment
Making the Business Case for Road Safety Investment to Achieve Sustainable Road Mobility
The White Paper for Road Safety Investment is the outcome of debates of the road safety task force members who met at the Challenge Bibendum in Berlin on 18th of May 2011. These experts gathered to report on the business case for investment to achieve safe sustainable road mobility. Expenditure on road safety as an investment and not as a cost – is one of their main messages to the stakeholders. This White Paper contributes to the Global Decade of Action for Road Safety, launched in May 2011, the inclusion of road safety in the Millennium Development Goals and the G 20 agenda. It shows that road crashes have a major negative economic and social impact, especially in developing countries. It provides a real and objective data relating to the road safety business case and roadmap to be taken into consideration both by governments, large fleet operators and private companies. It shows how business is tackling this issue where around 30% of road traffic crashes are work related, and how businesses and civil society can work in partnership with governments to reduce crashes and improve efficiency. The road safety task force was composed of representatives of private companies, academia, government and international organisations who collaborated during the workshop held in the framework of the 11th Edition of Challenge Bibendum in Berlin on 18th May 2011.