SAFER ROADS INVESTMENT PLANS FOR 14 COUNTRIES IN SOUTH EAST EUROPE

Transcription

1 SAFER ROADS INVESTMENT PLANS FOR 14 COUNTRIES IN SOUTH EAST EUROPE S. D. LAWSON Road Safety Foundation, United Kingdom E. BELLOS & O. DJORDJEVIC Make Roads Safe Hellas, Greece S. EFSTATHIADIS & M. ANDROULIDAKIS Transportation Solutions, Greece M. MALY, J. LANDA, & L. TRISKA AF-CityPlan, Czech Republic M. SEVROVIC & B. JOVANOVIC University of Zagreb, Croatia J. KOSTANJSEK & R. MARSETIC University of Ljubljana, Slovenia N. GALOVIC AMSS-CMV, Serbia, T. SIPOS, A. KISS & P. HOLLO KTI, Hungary, M. JUCK Safe Roads Slovakia, previously SAMS ABSTRACT This paper reports on Star Rating the safety of roads and Safer Roads Investment Plans of selected countermeasures and their BCRs (benefit cost ratios) from a road survey of 19,000km of major roads in South East Europe Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Greece, Hungary, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine. The authors are the technical teams and the Project Partners who hosted training, including Lead Partner, Make Roads Safe Hellas. The SENSoR project was funded by the South East Europe Transnational Cooperation Programme, co-funded by the European Union and uses irap protocols. Typically 50-70% of roads in the individual countries surveyed score 1- or 2-star on a 5-point scale (the least safe) for vehicle occupant safety and even less well for vulnerable road users. The programme has identified the potential location, cost and savings involved in implementing countermeasures. Those with greatest injury-reducing benefits are: barriers, shoulder treatment, surface repair and markings, improved pedestrians facilities and safer intersections. IP0525-Lawson-E.doc 1

2 Programme BCRs are typically about 5-6, with economically justified carriageway upgrading often costing around EUR k per carriageway kilometre, but considerably less in some countries. EUR1,600m investment may save around 114,000 fatal and serious injuries over 20 years. 1. SENSoR SENSoR (South East Neighbourhood Safer Roads) builds on outstanding cooperation between automobile clubs, universities and road authorities. Having been co-financed by the South East Europe (SEE) Transnational Cooperation Programme and the European Union, the 2-year project brought together 14 countries Greece, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Republic of Moldova, Serbia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Albania, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Romania and Ukraine. The project was launched in September 2012 and completed in November It included the road survey, coding, analyses and reporting of Road Assessment Programme road safety assessments of 19,000kms of routes (including around 4,000km donated from earlier surveys in Moldova and Ukraine) in the above-mentioned countries and more than 27,000km of Risk Mapping using fatal and serious crash data [1]. This paper is presented as a consultation on recommendations as the SENSoR Project Partners wish to discuss the results with those who influence the safety of roads and road infrastructure. The results can be used to explore the priorities and possibilities for investing to save lives and serious injuries. The results presented here are based upon surveys producing Star Rating and Safer Roads Investment Plans (SRIPs) carried out during the lifetime of the SENSoR project and upon data collected at other times and with the support of Project Partners, government and police agencies. The SENSoR project is grateful for this support. An outcome of the SENSoR project is that the individual participating countries now have a SRIP which may be used to prioritise spending on crash reducing countermeasures. The SRIP should be considered as a concept of potential improvements rather than a bill of materials and the assumptions used in the model, must be carefully assessed by local engineers and others who have contributed to the work or who have a legitimate interest in the roads Death and serious injury in South East Europe In the South East Europe region and according to the World Health Organization, the number of road fatalities is more than 11,000 per year. If it is assumed that the ratio of serious:fatal injuries is about 10:1 then there are more than 126,000 fatal and serious injuries annually and the estimated Gross Domestic Product loss due to road traffic crashes is in the region of 2-3%. IP0525-Lawson-E.doc 2

3 Table 1 Estimated annual road deaths and serious injuries by country Country Annual road deaths Annual serious injuries* Total Albania 352 3,520 3,872 Austria 522 5,220 5,742 Bosnia & Herzegovina 336 3,360 3,696 Bulgaria 775 7,750 8,525 Croatia 426 4,260 4,686 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 162 1,620 1,782 Greece 1,451 14,510 15,961 Hungary 740 7,400 8,140 Italy (part**) ,000 22,000 Montenegro ,045 Republic of Moldova 450 4,500 4,950 Romania 2,377 23,770 26,147 Serbia 660 6,600 7,260 Slovakia 515 5,150 5,665 Slovenia 138 1,380 1,518 Ukraine (part) 500 5,000 5,500 Total 11, , ,489 WHO: Global Status Report on Road Safety 2013 (Most recent available collated data, generally 2010). *Estimated on the basis of 10:1 serious:fatal casualties. **Data for Italy to be included in a future report. The Road Fatalities Rate per 100,000 people ranges from around 7 in Slovenia to twice that rate in several countries including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Moldova and Montenegro. 2. ROAD SURVEYS OF MAJOR ROADS IN SOUTH EAST EUROPE The assessment of the roads safety requires surveys of the road network sections and the assignment of a safety score to road attributes. The inspection is conducted by visual observation from recordings of the road infrastructure elements which have a proven influence on the likelihood of a crash occurring or its severity. Surveys were conducted, principally between October 2012 and March 2014, by four contractors (AF-CityPlan (for Albania, FYROM, Hungary, Montenegro and Slovakia), FPZ at the University of Zagreb (Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina), University of Ljubljana (Slovenia), Transportation Solutions (Bulgaria, Greece and Romania) and by the Observer Partner AMSS-CMV in Serbia). Surveys in Moldova and in Ukraine were supported by funds from the national road authority and by the World Bank respectively Coverage Data for 15,219km of roads were collected in 12 countries as part of the SENSoR project. These countries are Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Greece, Hungary, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia. For comparison purposes and to enrich the dataset, irap (the International Road Assessment Programme) and EuroRAP have donated data from similar work in Republic of Moldova (2,480km) and Ukraine (1,616km). The total road network surveyed is therefore IP0525-Lawson-E.doc 3

4 19,315km. The total carriageway length of these roads is 24,031km. Divided carriageways were surveyed in both directions Details of the recorded road attributes From the collected video, 52 record attributes related to the likelihood of a crash occurring, or factors that influence its severity, are coded for every 100m. The EuroRAP/iRAP methodology focusses on reducing severe injuries in head-on, run-off and intersection crashes for vehicle occupants and motorcyclists and in the situations in which pedestrians and cyclists experience conflict. The network is predominantly single carriageway (Table 2), ranging from 97-98% in Serbia, Montenegro, Moldova and Ukraine, through to 57-58% in FYROM and Greece. Country Table 2 - The road network by carriageway type and country Total network length (km) Single c way (km) % single c way Dual c way (km) % Dual c way Total c way length Albania Bosnia & Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Greece 3,340 1, , ,738 Hungary 2,923 1, , ,923 Montenegro Republic of Moldova 2,480 2, ,531 Romania Serbia Slovakia 1,866 1, ,488 Slovenia 3,537 2, ,313 Ukraine 1,616 1, ,666 Total 19,315 14, , , DATA USED IN MODELLING 3.1. Traffic Volume Traffic volume data is used in the irap model to balance between crash types and as a multiplier to estimate the number of deaths and serious injuries that could be prevented on the roads. Traffic volumes were supplied by government sources or were estimated during the survey periods where data were unavailable. Low flows were most common in FRYOM and Moldova but also in Montenegro and Albania. A large part of the Romanian network exhibited high flows, and more than a quarter in Bulgaria, Croatia and Slovenia. IP0525-Lawson-E.doc 4

5 Table 3 - Distribution of Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) by country Country Total network length (km) % AADT <5,000 (very low) %AADT 5, (low) % AADT 10,000-20,000 (moderate) % AADT >20,000 (high) Albania Bosnia & Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Greece 3, Hungary 2, Montenegro Republic of Moldova 2, Romania Serbia Slovakia 1, Slovenia 3, Ukraine 1, Total 19, The countries in SENSoR show range of reported GDP/capita/annum, used in the economic modelling, from Moldova (EUR1,586) to Slovenia (EUR17,166) a factor of 11 between lowest and highest. In SENSoR, a Discount Rate 12% has been used in most countries, whereas in some, after local consultation, 9% and 4% has been used. A sensitivity analysis conducted within the ViDA ( showed that from a practical perspective, at a 12% discount rate compared with 4%, the total Present Value of safety benefits was approximately halved, the overall estimated cost of the investment is reduced by about a third and the estimated number of fatal and serious injuries saved over 20 years is reduced by about 10%. A value of life of GDP/capita/annum at Current Prices x 70 (see McMahon and Dahdah [2]) was used, with serious injury estimated as a quarter of this. IP0525-Lawson-E.doc 5

6 Table 4 - GDP/capita/annum in SENSoR countries Country GDP* 2014/ capita Currency Euro equivalent Albania 446,932 Lek 3,191 Bosnia & Herzegovina 7,560 Bam 3,863 Bulgaria 11,308 Lev 5,779 Croatia 79,381 HRK (Kuna) 10,375 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 250,927 Denar 4,068 Greece 16,376 Euro 16,376 Hungary 3,024,186 Forint 9,677 Montenegro 29,754 Euro 5,699 Republic of Moldova 5,699 Leu 1,586 Romania 31,111 New Leu 6,876 Serbia 552,805 Dinar 4,765 Slovakia 14,041 Euro 14,041 Slovenia 17,166 Euro 17,166 Ukraine 32,691 Hryvna 2,419 *GDP per capita per annum, Current Prices in local currency, 3 March 2014 (Source IMF: 4. STAR RATING RESULTS Based on the coded and supporting data, the ViDA online software produces star rating of the surveyed network. The star rating is based on individual relative risk for four user groups vehicle occupants, pedestrians, motorcyclists and bicyclists. Therefore, four different star ratings were produced. The methodology enables smoothing of the data in order to eliminate large variance in star rating differences over very short sections of road. The methodology is described in detail at the irap website [2] Percentage of roads achieving 3-star or above The Star Ratings results for the entire road network analysed are presented in Table 5 for each user group. Those roads scoring 3-star and above are typically higher-standard motorways and expressways. Single carriageways score 3-star if they are operated at lower speeds (and may include frequent urban sections, as in Ukraine) or have good run-off protection, wide carriageways, good marking, sealed shoulders, infrequent and well-designed intersections. There is a range of quality in the network, with some countries showing a consistently lower star rating. The table below shows the percentage of surveyed roads in each country achieving a 3-star minimum. Note that the selection of the roads surveyed in each country determines the distribution of the Star Rating and where only a small sample of the network has been surveyed (eg Bulgaria, Romania and Serbia) this should not be taken as representative of the roads overall in that country. Note that those samples with a high proportion of dual carriageway also have a high proportion of roads rated at 3-star or above. IP0525-Lawson-E.doc 6

7 The lack of specific provision for motorcyclists, pedestrians and cyclists has been referred to elsewhere. Ratings for motorcyclists, pedestrians and bicyclists are typically substantially lower than for vehicle occupants. Country Table 5: Percentage of roads scoring 3-star or more for each road user % 3-star+ vehicle occupant % 3-star+ motorcyclist % 3-star+ pedestrian % 3- star+ bicyclist % Dual carriageway Albania Bosnia & Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Greece n/a 42 Hungary Montenegro Republic of Moldova Romania Serbia Slovakia Slovenia n/a n/a 22 Ukraine n/a not rated IP0525-Lawson-E.doc 7

8 Figure 1 - SENSoR Pan-South East Europe Star Rating Map

9 5. NETWORK DEFICITS 5.1. Network deficits indicated by road attribute data The data collection enables analysis to be made of deficits leading to commonly occurring crashes or injuries. The results in Table 6 give values for the situations in Figure 2. Many of the values indicate a need for provision but they do not assess the economic viability of countermeasures. This is tackled in the Section 6. Figure 2 - Network deficits indicated by road attribute data Albania Table 6 - Network deficits indicated by road attribute data all SENSoR countries Country % pedestrian provision inadequate % bicyclist provision inadequate % headon provision lacking % curves with hazards % intersection protection Albania Bosnia & Herzegovina Bulgaria Croatia FYR of Macedonia Greece 95 n/a Hungary Montenegro Republic of Moldova Romania Serbia Slovakia Slovenia n/a n/a Ukraine Mean IP0525-Lawson-E.doc 9

10 5.2. Overall investment and fatal and serious injuries saved The SRIP for the entire surveyed network (Table 8) would save almost 114,000 fatal and serious injuries over the analysis period of 20 years. The cost of these countermeasures adds up to around EUR1,600m, again over 20 years. Across the 14 countries for which there are data in the SENSoR project, the range of BCRs (benefit:cost ratios) is between 2 and 9 (Table 8) for the overall investment programmes, but typically 5-6. For individual countermeasures, the BCRs of those with greatest life-saving potential relative to cost can of course be higher, with many around 10 (see, for example Table 7), but in some countries commonly up to and around 20. BCRs for some countermeasures are predicted to be even higher, typically: if costs of the measures are low (such as with delineation) if the risk reduction is focussed on a very limited part of the network (for example, at crossing facilities for pedestrians at a few sites of high activity), or if a predicted risk is precisely matched with a countermeasure (such as median barriers countering head-on crashes) 5.3. Network deficits examples Survey teams were asked to provide examples of deficit across the networks that they travelled. The following are illustrative and examples are encountered over large parts of the networks surveyed. Figure 3 - No median separation, poor markings and roadside hazards common IP0525-Lawson-E.doc 10

11 An indicator of poor provision for pedestrians is the quality of the pedestrian crossings 4,869 were surveyed in the 14 countries. 2,151 (44%) were described as poor quality, either because of a lack or signing and marking, poor maintenance, issues that would cause difficulties for the driver to see them or because of general clutter in the surrounding round environment. Poor pedestrian crossing quality was most common in Albania (90%), FYROM (88%), Republic of Moldova (77%), Greece (75%) and Montenegro (74%). Figure 4 - Poor crossing facilities, markings and footways frequently missing 6. INVESTMENT IN SAFER INFRASTRUCTURE 6.1. Safer Roads Investments Plan (SRIP) A fundamental output of the RAP method is recommendations for countermeasures provided by the Safer Roads Investment Plan. The SRIP presents all the countermeasures proved able to provide the greater safety capacity and maximize the benefit over spent cost of the planned investments. The cost of each countermeasure is compared to the value of life and serious injuries that could be saved and Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) is calculated for each countermeasure proposed. The example from Montenegro is shown below (Table 7). The minimum threshold BCR for the entire SRIP was set to 3. Note that BCRs for overall country programmes or countermeasures depend upon many elements, including the acceptance threshold (set at 1 by local request in Moldova, Serbia and Ukraine and at 3 elsewhere) that is set for matching countermeasures with risk over every 100m, the value of life and the countermeasure costs selected. IP0525-Lawson-E.doc 11

12 Table 7 - Top-10 countermeasures for the entire road network: Montenegro (EUR) for BCR qualification criteria each 100m = 3 Total FSIs saved Total PV of Safety Benefits (EUR) Estimated cost (EUR) Cost per FSI saved (EUR) Program BCR 1, m 13.7m 7,485 6 Countermeasure Length/ Sites FSIs saved PV of safety benefit Estimated Cost Cost per FSI saved Roadside barriers passenger side 66.9 km m 5.1m 6,917 7 Roadside barriers driver side 45.4 km m 3.1m 10,063 5 Improve curve delineation 49.3 km m 0.9m 4, Road surface rehabilitation 38.9 km m 1.0m 7,155 7 Shoulder rumble strips 78.7 km m 0.8m 5,979 8 Clear roadside hazards driver side 95.1 km m 0.5m 5,348 9 Clear roadside hazards passenger side 85.2 km m 0.4m 5,137 9 Shoulder sealing driver side (>1m) 26.1 km m 0.4m 7,422 6 Improve delineation 17.9 km m 0.5m 15,122 3 Shoulder sealing passenger side (>1) 10.0 km m 0.3m 10,420 5 BCR Table 8 - Programme cost (million Euros), fatal and serious injuries (FSIs) saved over 20 years, cost per carriageway km and Benefit:Cost ratio Country Program cost (EUR (m)) FSIs saved EUR(m)/ carriageway km Albania 31 6, Bosnia & Herzegovina 11 2, Bulgaria , Croatia 34 2, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia BCR 12 1, Greece , Hungary , Montenegro 14 1, Republic of Moldova 39 10, Romania 81 9, Serbia Slovakia (First Class roads) 178 7, Slovenia 171 4, Ukraine 37 14, Total 1, , IP0525-Lawson-E.doc 12

13 Table 9 - Fatal & serious injuries (FSIs) saved in 20 years by most common measures Country Side barriers Shoulder treatment /marking Median barrier Pedestrian provision Road surface Sign/line including intersections Albania 2,960 1, Bosnia & Herzegovina Bulgaria 3,600 2,500 3,120 3,960 2,190 1,810 Croatia Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 1, Greece 6,220 5,230 8,100 1,240 3, Hungary 3,370 3,450 1,890 2,220 1,730 1,010 Montenegro 1, Republic of Moldova 1,150 4, , ,310 Romania 2,260 1,440 4,680 2, Serbia Slovakia 2,310 1,590 1,740 1,288 1, Slovenia 2, Ukraine 590 1,230 1,180 4, ,520 Total 29,279 23,542 21,061 18,524 10,011 8,799 % of FSIs saved by most common measures 21% 17% 15% 13% 7% 6% Table 9 shows individual measures benefits taken, for consistency, from the published individual country national reports (where, for example, threshold BCRs of unity were used initially in Bulgaria, Greece and Romania and therefore provide higher savings estimates than shown in Table 8 and some countermeasure costs differ slightly). Zero entries in Table 9 indicate that the measure was not one of those the top-listed and may reflect the character of the network surveyed or existing provision. The number or percentage of casualties that may be saved varies across the countries dependent in part upon such elements as: the average annual number of fatal and casualties occurring in the period before any implementation see for example Bulgaria and Romania the maturity of the safety engineering infrastructure in any country and the extent to which new infrastructure may be implemented to reduce casualties see for example Albania, Moldova and Ukraine where impressive casualty savings are anticipated from relatively modest programmes IP0525-Lawson-E.doc 13

14 the maturity and quality of the existing infrastructure in Slovenia, for example, it is necessary to spend more to reduce casualties, in many cases because there has already been recent investment and easy wins become more difficult to achieve These results for consultation provide a limited scenario of costs and benefits and the ViDA software offers the opportunity for local engineers and policy makers to vary the parameters to match them local circumstances and budgets. The total proposed programme cost varies largely according to the length of the network surveyed but also according to several other variables. The cost can be carried according to priorities and the threshold BCR can be adjusted to provide suitable returns. Programme costs may be viewed as investments to be implemented as a phased process. They range in value from modest EUR11m for a 312km network in Bosnia and Herzegovina to EUR650m in Greece for a 3,340km network) in Greece. In several countries the recommended investment per kilometre is high (justified economically on the basis of one or more of: high traffic volumes, high fatal crash densities, because there is much improve, or since costs are relatively high Bulgaria, Greece, Romania Serbia) the average recommended investment per carriageway kilometre is EUR k. In other countries, the average economically justified recommended investment can be much lower, often because it may be more difficult to justify the countermeasure costs on an economic basis because there are lower AADTs, with fewer deaths and injury injuries or a lower value of life Countermeasure solutions based on routine maintenance, major upgrading and responding to crash studies A consistent picture emerges across the SENSoR countries of the measures that will save lives. ViDA enables the countermeasures to be ranked by the highest number of lives and serious injuries saved by each measure. The measures can reduce around 114,000 deaths and serious injuries over 20 years. The most common are those that: reduce run-off injuries roadside barriers and shoulder treatment provide overtaking protection median barriers provision for pedestrians footpaths and pedestrian crossings, lighting at intersections and on mid-blocks, traffic calming in village sections improvements at intersections by road markings and upgrading control There is a combination of changes that can be brought about by maintenance and upgrading: maintenance signing/lining, shoulder sealing, road surface rehabilitation or skid resistance improvement, roadside clearance, central hatching upgrading roadside barriers or duplication with median barrier IP0525-Lawson-E.doc 14

15 Other improvements will be led by intelligence from crash studies supplemented by information from the Safer Roads Investment Plan Engagement with road authorities and government Reported upon separately within the project, a key part of SENSoR has been to feed back to national road authorities the findings and to support in implementing countermeasures. There has been regular contact between Project Partners and road authorities. A feature of the support provided by the SENSoR team was a series of training workshops run in Greece, Hungary, Slovakia and Slovenia. Separately, members of the SENSoR team and or those providing transnational project support have had meetings with ministers of roads infrastructure in Albania, Greece, Moldova and Serbia and roads directors in Hungary, Romania, Slovenia, Ukraine and with technical teams in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, FYROM, Montenegro and Slovakia. In Bulgaria, early steps have been taken with the Project Partner to arrange follow-up with government in By November 2104, launches of work had been held, or were planned, in all countries. 7. CONCLUSIONS On the roads of South East Europe there are currently around 11,500 deaths per year and about 126,000 fatal and serious injuries per year. Five survey teams, based in Croatia, Czech Republic, Greece, Serbia, Slovenia, supported by the South East Europe Transnational Cooperation Programme, an agency co-funded by the European Union, have conducted surveys for the SENSoR Project to Star Rate roads for safety for more than 19,000km of on roads in 14 countries. On the roads inspected, it is estimated that more than 1,260 people die each year. If those roads in Ukraine are excluded (because they do not fall within the South East Europe region), it is estimated that the SENSoR project has assessed roads in the South East Europe region on which slightly more than 10% of the road deaths occur. The information from the road surveys has been complemented by Risk Maps for 27,000km of roads in 10 countries in South East Europe. This is reported on separately. The total proposed programme cost varies largely according to the length of the network surveyed but also according to several other variables. The cost can be carried according to priorities and the threshold BCR can be adjusted to provide suitable returns. Programme costs may be viewed as investments to be implemented over 5-10 years. They range in value from modest EUR11m for a 312km network in Bosnia and Herzegovina to EUR650m in Greece for a 3,340km network. In several countries the recommended investment per kilometre is high (justified economically on the basis of one or more of: high traffic volumes, high fatal crash densities, because there is much improve, or since costs are relatively high Bulgaria, Greece, Romania Serbia) the average recommended investment per carriageway kilometre is EUR k. IP0525-Lawson-E.doc 15

16 In other countries, the average economically justified recommended investment can be much lower, often because it may be more difficult to justify the countermeasure costs on an economic basis because there are lower AADTs, with fewer deaths and serious injuries or a lower value of life. Based on the estimate of 1,260 deaths on the SENSoR network and the standard irap modelling assumptions, there would be 227,640 fatal and serious injuries over 20 years if there were no investment, assuming a fatal:serious ratio of 1:10. The Safer Roads Investment Plan for the entire surveyed network would save around half (about 114,000) of the estimated fatal and serious injuries over the analysis period of 20 years. The cost of these countermeasures is approximately EUR1,600m. Across the 14 countries for which there are data in the SENSoR project, the range of Benefit Cost Ratios is between 2 and 9 for the overall investment programmes, but typically 5-6. For individual countermeasures, the BCRs of those with greatest life-saving potential can of course be higher, with many around 10, but in some countries often up to and around 20. The most common recommended countermeasures are those that: reduce run-off injuries roadside barriers and shoulder treatment provide overtaking protection median barriers provide for pedestrians footpaths and pedestrian crossings, lighting at intersections and on mid-blocks, traffic calming in village sections improvements at intersections by road markings and upgrading control Improvements may be undertaken as part of: maintenance signing/lining, shoulder sealing, road surface rehabilitation or skid resistance improvement, roadside clearance, central hatching upgrading roadside barriers, additional lanes, duplication with median barrier or as a result of intelligence from road safety studies As the SENSoR project drew to a close in November 2014, there was a high degree of engagement in all countries, with the personal support of the relevant government minister in several of them. REFERENCES C McMahon and S Dahdah: The True Costs of Road Crashes, irap IP0525-Lawson-E.doc 16