Economic evaluations of road safety measures are only rarely published in the scholarly literature. We collected and (re-)analyzed evidence in order to conduct cost-benefit analyses (CBAs) for 29 road safety measures. The information on crash costs was based on data from a survey in European countries. We applied a systematic procedure including corrections for inflation and Purchasing Power Parity in order to express all the monetary information in the same units (EUR, 2015). Cost-benefit analyses were done for measures with favorable estimated effects on road safety and for which relevant information on costs could be found. Results were assessed in terms of benefit-to-cost ratios and net present value. In order to account for some uncertainties, we carried out sensitivity analyses based on varying assumptions for costs of measures and measure effectiveness. Moreover we defined some combinations used as best case and worst case scenarios. In the best estimate scenario, 25 measures turn out to be cost-effective. 4 measures (road lighting, automatic barriers installation, area wide traffic calming and mandatory eyesight tests) are not cost-effective according to this scenario. In total, 14 measures remain cost-effective throughout all scenarios, whereas 10 other measures switch from cost-effective in the best case scenario to not cost-effective in the worst case scenario. For three measures insufficient information is available to calculate all scenarios. Two measures (automatic barriers installation and area wide traffic calming) even in the best case do not become cost-effective. Inherent uncertainties tend to be present in the underlying data on costs of measures, effects and target groups. Results of CBAs are not necessarily generally valid or directly transferable to other settings.@en

Objective: In this article the factors affecting fatality and injury risk of road users involved in fatal accidents are analyzed by means of in-depth accident investigation data, with emphasis on parameters not extensively explored in previous research. Methods: A fatal accident investigation (FAI) database is used, which includes intermediate-level in-depth data for a harmonized representative sample of 1300 fatal accidents in 7 European countries. The FAI database offers improved potential for analysis, because it includes information on a number of variables that are seldom available, complete, or accurately recorded in road accident databases. However, the fact that only fatal accidents are examined requires for methodological adjustments, namely, the correction for two types of effects on a road user's baseline risk: “accident size” effects, and “relative vulnerability” effects. Fatality and injury risk can be then modeled through multilevel logistic regression models, which account for the hierarchical dependences of the road accident process. Results: The results show that the baseline fatality risk of road users involved in fatal accidents decreases with accident size and increases with the vulnerability of the road user. On the contrary, accident size increases nonfatal injury risk of road users involved in fatal accidents. Other significant effects on fatality and injury risk in fatal accidents include road user age, vehicle type, speed limit, the chain of accident events, vehicle maneuver, and safety equipment. In particular, the presence and use of safety equipment such as seat belt, antilock braking system (ABS), and electronic stability program (ESP) are protection factors for car occupants, especially for those seated at the front seats. Conclusions: Although ABS and ESP systems are typically associated with positive effects on accident occurrence, the results of this research revealed significant related effects on accident severity as well. Moreover, accident consequences are more severe when the most harmful event of the accident occurs later within the accident chain.@en

This paper aims at addressing the interest and appropriateness of performing accident severity analyses that are limited to fatal accident data. Two methodological issues are specifically discussed, namely the accident-size factors (the number of vehicles in the accident and their level of occupancy) and the comparability of the baseline risk. It is argued that – although these two issues are generally at play in accident severity analyses – their effects on, e.g., the estimation of survival probability, are exacerbated if the analysis is limited to fatal accident data. As a solution, it is recommended to control for these effects by (1) including accident-size indicators in the model, (2) focusing on different sub-groups of road-users while specifying the type of opponent in the model, so as to ensure that comparable baseline risks are worked with. These recommendations are applied in order to investigate risk and protection factors of car occupants involved in fatal accidents using data from a recently set up European Fatal Accident Investigation database (Reed and Morris, 2009). The results confirm that the estimated survival probability is affected by accident-size factors and by type of opponent. The car occupants’ survival chances are negatively associated with their own age and that of their vehicle. The survival chances are also lower when seatbelt is not used. Front damage, as compared to other damaged car areas, appears to be associated with increased survival probability, but mostly in the case in which the accident opponent was another car. The interest of further investigating accident-size factors and opponent effects in fatal accidents is discussed.@en

In this paper a unified methodology is presented for the modelling of the evolution of road safety in 30 European countries. For each country, annual data of the best available exposure indicator and of the number of fatalities were simultaneously analysed with the bivariate latent risk time series model. This model is based on the assumption that the amount of exposure and the number of fatalities are intrinsically related. It captures the dynamic evolution in the fatalities as the product of the dynamic evolution in two latent trends: the trend in the fatality risk and the trend in the exposure to that risk. Before applying the latent risk model to the different countries it was first investigated and tested whether the exposure indicator at hand and the fatalities in each country were in fact related at all. If they were, the latent risk model was applied to that country; if not, a univariate local linear trend model was applied to the fatalities series only, unless the latent risk time series model was found to yield better forecasts than the univariate local linear trend model. In either case, the temporal structure of the unobserved components of the optimal model was established, and structural breaks in the trends related to external events were identified and captured by adding intervention variables to the appropriate components of the model. As a final step, for each country the optimally modelled developments were projected into the future, thus yielding forecasts for the number of fatalities up to and including 2020.@en

Hierarchical structures in road safety data are receiving increasing attention in the literature and multilevel (ML) models are proposed for appropriately handling the resulting dependences among the observations. However, so far no empirical synthesis exists of the actual added value of ML modelling techniques as compared to other modelling approaches. This paper summarizes the statistical and conceptual background and motivations for multilevel analyses in road safety research. It then provides a review of several ML analyses applied to aggregate and disaggregate (accident) data. In each case, the relevance of ML modelling techniques is assessed by examining whether ML model formulations (i) allow improving the fit of the model to the data, (ii) allow identifying and explaining random variation at specific levels of the hierarchy considered, and (iii) yield different (more correct) conclusions than single-level model formulations with respect to the significance of the parameter estimates. The evidence reviewed offers different conclusions depending on whether the analysis concerns aggregate data or disaggregate data. In the first case, the application of ML analysis techniques appears straightforward and relevant. The studies based on disaggregate accident data, on the other hand, offer mixed findings: computational problems can be encountered, and ML applications are not systematically necessary. The general recommendation concerning disaggregate accident data is to proceed to a preliminary investigation of the necessity of ML analyses and of the additional information to be expected from their application.@en