1.2.1. Road safety management investigation model

The investigation model of [MUH 11] describes road safety management structures and outputs according to the policy-making cycle (agenda setting, policy formulation, adoption, implementation and evaluation) set against the background of a typical hierarchical national government organization (Figure 1.1). The most complete RS management system, which would have been obtained for a country fulfilling all the “good practice” criteria that was identified and was used as a reference (Figure 1.2). For each country, “good practice” elements, a lack of such elements and peculiarities can be then summarized in a “diagnosis” including structures, processes, policy-making tasks and outputs according to the investigation model.

1.2.2. Data collection and handling

On the basis of the investigation model, an extensive DaCoTA questionnaire was developed, by which various road safety management systems meet the “good practice” criteria. The questions related to the five main areas of Road Safety Management:

• – institutional organization, coordination and stakeholders’ involvement;
• – policy formulation and adoption;
• – policy implementation and funding;
• – monitoring and evaluation;
• – scientific support and information, capacity building.

The questionnaire was filled in for 14 countries. More specifically, the DaCoTA partners represented the 12 countries: Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom, and were able to collect data in the native language of a further two: Ireland and Switzerland. To maximize the representativeness of the sample, questionnaires were sent by email to road safety actors in Latvia and Spain to fill in independently without an interview. However, clarifications were sought when necessary.

Two groups of road safety professionals were targeted:

• – government representatives: road safety practitioners who are or have been directly involved in policy and decision making over a long enough period of time for them to have acquired wide-ranging experience in road safety;
• – independent experts: road safety researchers or scientists who may contribute to policy but do not have a decision making role and could offer a non-partisan view of the Road Safety Management systems in place.

A shorter version of the DaCoTA questionnaire was been prepared in collaboration with the European Transport Safety Council (ETSC). This questionnaire includes 11 key questions similar to those of the original DaCoTA questionnaire and was dispatched to the PIN panel of the ETSC, i.e. the 30 high level national experts from ETSC network of member organizations. This gave a general overview of the Road Safety Management system in 30 countries, although in much less detail than the DaCoTA data.

The combined use of the two questionnaires allowed on the one hand the coverage of basic road safety management elements for all European countries (DaCoTA/ETSC-PIN questionnaire), and on the other hand the full in-depth analysis for a subset of European countries (DaCoTA questionnaire).

1.3.1. Road safety management profiles

Country profiles of the road safety management systems in the 14 European countries were analyzed and compared to the reference “good practice” system (Figure 1.2). Road safety management structures and outputs are described according to the policy-making cycle (agenda setting, policy formulation, adoption, implementation and evaluation) and set against the background of a typical hierarchical national government organization. Because such a typical organization is not suited to managing road safety policies, which involve most government sectors, specific structures have been set up in most countries, modifying or shortcircuiting the typical hierarchical administration.

For each country, these structures as well as the working processes were charted to provide a graphic picture of the road safety management situation (“country profile”), such as the one presented in Figure 1.3 for Belgium, and the identification of “good practice” elements, such as those presented in Figure 1.4 for Belgium. Focus was on the national organization and the relationships between national and regional/local structures and not on road safety management at the decentralized level, as it was agreed at an earlier stage of methodology building that this aspect could not be tackled in the timeframe of the DaCoTA project.

The thorough analysis of the country profiles, together with additional information from the DaCoTA/ETSC-PIN data, allowed for an in-depth analysis and comparison of countries, leading to several observations and conclusions. These are summarized in section 1.3.2.

1.3.2. Summary of country analyses

1.3.2.1. Institutional organization, coordination and stakeholders’ involvement

A large variation was observed in the structures and processes at the higher level of road safety management. The component “Lead Agency formally appointed to take responsibility for road safety” had a higher availability level among the countries. However, different types of Lead Agencies (from strong departments of ministries, to interministerial committees and road safety councils) and with different specific roles were identified. In several cases, it is not easy to identify the “lead agency”.

Although it is widely acknowledged that effective road safety management can be achieved with lead agencies of various structural and procedural forms (BLI 09), the results of DaCoTA suggest that road safety management systems based on strong departments of ministries, or that use government agencies specifically established for this purpose, with clear responsibility for the government’s road safety policy, are more effective.

The DaCoTA results clearly indicate that the establishment of a structure and process alone is not sufficient for effective road safety management. In several countries coordination and budget are the most critical links for setting the processes in motion. The effectiveness of road safety management systems can also be largely affected by the degree to which regional authorities, NGOs, stakeholders or the public at large are involved via systematic consultation at all stages of the policymaking process. Very few countries demonstrate such routines and fruitful consultation processes.

1.4.1. Clustering of countries on the basis of road safety management components

Statistical clustering techniques were used to group and rank the 14 European countries on the basis of their level of availability of the various road safety management “good practice” elements, separately for each one of the five areas of the DaCoTA questionnaire (see section 1.2.2). Figure 1.5 presents, as an example, the clustering results concerning the first area of the questionnaire, namely “institutional organization”. A ranking of countries in terms of their road safety management system, per area and as a whole, was also presented.

The analyses confirmed that the complexity and variability of road safety management systems is such that the task of ranking the countries in terms of road safety management is very demanding. It was revealed that all the countries are completely different when road safety management systems are considered as a whole, making it impossible to propose a single overall ranking of countries’ road safety management systems. However, it is possible to compare the countries when parts of the road safety management system are considered separately.

However, even when examining the various parts of road safety management systems separately, no two countries were found to belong to the exact same ranking. Across all the analyses, a number of countries with a consistently higher level of availability of some road safety management components could be identified, and others with a consistently lower level of the same features. Interestingly, however, the countries that were ranked systematically at the top of road safety management components were not always those that are known to be the best road safety performing countries.

For example, according to the clustering results, Switzerland, Israel, Finland were found to be consistently ranked best in the various stages of the road safety policy-making cycle, whereas, the UK and the Netherlands were not always ranked best in road safety management components. On the other hand, the countries that were found to be consistently ranked at the lowest of the scale were Poland and Greece, which is in accordance with these countries’ ranking on the basis of fatality rates.

The inconsistencies that emerged when comparing the rankings of road safety management with road safety performance, especially for the “good” performing countries, brought forward the need for a dedicated analysis on the potential links between these two.

1.4.2. Statistical models linking road safety management with road safety performance

In this analysis, regression models were developed to test whether road safety management is associated with road safety performance. Different road safety outcomes (fatalities, reduction in fatalities, safety performance indicators – the intermediate outcomes) were tested against road safety management indicators and other background variables. Composite indicators were also used both as dependent and explanatory variables [BAX 12].

The dedicated analysis of road safety management and road safety performance was based on the SUNflower pyramid [KOO 02] tackling the entire hierarchy from structure and culture, to programs and measures, to safety performance indicators (intermediate outcomes) and to road safety final outcomes (i.e. fatalities and injuries). Due to the complexity of road safety management systems, as identified by the analysis of the DaCoTA questionnaire responses, this analysis was based on a shorter version of the questionnaire, namely the common DaCoTA/ETSC-PIN questions. The various models developed are summarized in Table 1.1.

The results suggest no direct relationship between road safety management and the final outcomes of the road safety systems. However, they do suggest a relationship between road safety management and road safety performance indicators [PAP 13]. This is what is in fact suggested by the SUNflower pyramid, namely that the policy context and input will first affect the intermediate outcomes, i.e. the operational level of road safety, which corresponds to the level of road infrastructure, the maturity of road user behavior, the protection offered by vehicles, etc. These operational conditions are thought to be the result of policies and interventions, and the final outcomes are results of these operational conditions.

Of course, the fact that European countries constitute a small sample, does not allow for the identification of strong relationships, but rather to the indication of the presence of relationships. Moreover, there are some confounding factors that could not be accounted for, such as mobility, economy, weather, long traditions, etc.