VULNERABLE ROAD USER SAFETY: ITALY, SWEDEN AND AUSTRALIA

Transcription

1 VULNERABLE ROAD USER SAFETY: ITALY, SWEDEN AND AUSTRALIA Brian Fildes 1, Lucia Pennisi 2 Matteo Rizzi 3 1. Introduction Safety experts typically define Vulnerable Road Users as either those who are either inexperienced or frail (i.e.; children or seniors) or those who are more exposed (less protected) to injury in the event of a crash, such as pedestrians, motor cyclists or bicyclists. It is generally accepted that they are more vulnerable compared to car, small and large trucks and buses because they are less protected because of their mode of transport or personal characteristics. The protection of vulnerable road users is a critical area of road safety given their numbers on the road and the particular risks associated with these modes of travel. 1.1 Extent of the Problem Death and casualties to Vulnerable Road Users (VRU) represents a sizeable annual trauma burden internationally. It is claimed that of the 43,000 people killed and more than three million casualties each year in Europe, VRUs, such as child cyclists and the elderly, are the most at risk [1]. In Australia, of the 1616 deaths from road accidents in 2007, approximately 30 percent comprised motorcyclists, pedestrians and bicyclists [2] The proportions of road deaths in Europe in 2005 [9] is shown in Figure 1 below. While car deaths accounted for roughly half of these for the whole population, the total among Vulnerable Road Users was only just slightly less. Noticeably, pedestrians made up around 17% of those, motorcycles 12% and among 18 to 25 year olds, moped crashes were especially 1 Monash University Accident Research Centre, Prato, Italy, brian.fildes@monash.edu 2 Automobile Club of Italy, Rome, Pennisi Lucia <l.pennisi@aci.it> 3 Vectura Consulting, Norrköping, Sweden, Rizzi Matteo <Matteo.Rizzi@vectura.se>

2 noteworthy. Among the Southern SEC Belt countries, France and Italy reportedly accounted for approximately two-thirds of the deaths in 2005 in this region [6]. Vulnerable road users, such as the cycling child, or the elderly pedestrian, are the most at risk. The European Transport Safety Council claimed vulnerable road users, such as those cycling and walking, have a fatality risk per distance travelled 7-9 times higher than car travellers [3]. 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Car Pedestrian Motorcycle Bicycle Moped All ages 0-25yrs 18-25yrs Figure 1: Percent fatal collisions by road user category in Europe [9] In Italy, there are 97 deaths per million inhabitants, and slightly above the national average for Europe of 95 deaths per million inhabitants. [3,4,5] This is in spite of the fact that the Italian government adopted a National Plan for road safety in 2000 that included a stated objective to reduce the road toll by 40% by 2010 with a particular focus on Vulnerable Road Users. [6]

3 Table 1: VRU killed in road crashes in Southern SEC Belt countries [6] Pedestrians Cyclists PTW Total France ,450 2,539 Greece Italy 1, ,191 2,743 Spain ,656 Portugal Total 3,448 1,136 3,798 8,382 Sweden is renowned for being one of the leading countries for road safety with a risk of a fatality or serious injury among the best. Yet even in this country, vulnerable road users are still at a higher risk than that of car occupants. Compared to car occupants, motorcyclists have a 28 times increase in fatality risk per million person km, while the increase for mopeds, cyclists and pedestrians varies from 7.5 to 9.9 times [19]. 1.2 Developing Countries In developing countries, the figures are even worse. For instance, in Thailand, it is claimed that most of the 13,000 deaths and more than one million casualties from road accidents each year, an overwhelming majority involve motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians [5]. 1.3 Growing Societal Problem Furthermore, the problem is not getting better. Growth in the number of users and their vulnerability suggests the numbers of VRUs is growing rapidly worldwide. Figure 3 shows that as the numbers of motorcycles has grown in Sweden, so too has the number of motorcyclists killed and seriously casualty in road accidents [8].

4 killed severely injured motorcycles on the road Figure 3: Number of killed and severely injured on motorcycles in Sweden compared to the number of motorcycles on the road [8] 1.4 Objective This paper sets out to examine these trends in more detail to illustrate differences in crash patterns, types of crashes and crash victims in Italy, Sweden and Australia to show the influence of culture and development across these regions. It is hoped that this will help identify potential road safety priorities, countermeasures and safety initiatives, of relevance in these differing regions. These countries were chosen as they represent a good contrast in cultures and for which representative data were available. 2. Data Analysis Crash data were available for analysis in these three countries and continents and individual analyses were performed on these data by representatives of each country, using a common analysis format and crash data period. The data period for the years 2005 to 2008 approximately was selected for analysis and reported separately by each country as an average proportion for each region. An overall analysis was then carried out, comparing each of the 3 countries to highlight similarities and differences.

5 2.1 Analysis Procedure Police-based mass databases were available for analysis from the ISTAT database in Italy, the Swedish Police database in Sweden, and from the collection of five Australian states of police data in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia (95% of the population). These three databases comprise crash records from 3 continents were expected to reveal different patterns of crashes and injury outcomes for VRU from varying levels and types of motorization. Each analysis focused on a number of common variables, including (i) outcome severity [killed or casualty crash], (ii) type of vehicle involved [motorcycle, pedestrian, bicycle, passenger car, and bus or truck], (iii) area of the crash location [urban/rural], (iv) who hit who, and (v) age group of the crash victim [all ages and young drivers/riders]. Different levels of risk among fatalities and all injured were also computed for the various Vulnerable Road User groups in Italy, Sweden and Australia using the numbers of victims per registered vehicle for further comparison. These analyses were predominantly crash-based and inclusion criteria were applied across regions for consistency. Where an accident occurred between a passenger car and a motorcycle for instance, each was counted twice, one for the passenger car, and again for the motorcycle. If the accident was between two passenger cars, however, it was only counted once. However, for the analyses of which vehicle hit which road user, all the vehicles have been considered. The risk analyses, though, were personbased as is the conventional practice for computing these figures. The number and percentage of crashes included those involving both a fatal and casualty crash outcome as determined by the attending police officer. Fatal crashes were defined as those where at least one of the crash victims was killed, while casualty crashes comprised those crashes where no one was killed but where at least one victim was recorded as casualty. It was expected that fatal crashes would differ from those where someone was casualty as this often reflects different levels of crash severity. No distinction was made between severe and moderate injuries in this analysis to keep the findings manageable. In addition, no attempt was made to evaluate these differences statistically because of the sizeable number of cases involved across each of the regions. Hence, the finding obtained comprised a purely descriptive analysis of differences between these three countries and continents.

6 Analysing large databases statistically such as those contained in this analysis across different regions can be problematic. The analysis, however, is useful as an overview document and helpful in setting the research agenda in these regions. 3. Results 3.1 Proportion of VRU Crashes The first analysis was to simply compare the proportion of VRU crashes by each region for both fatal and casualty crashes, shown in Table 2. Table 2: Proportion of crashes by road user type, country and outcome severity Road User Type Italy Sweden Australia Fatal Casualty Fatal Casualty Fatal Casualty Trucks & buses 15.7% 9.3% 5.4% 5.5% 11.7% 7.3% Passenger vehicles 49.7% 56.2% 60.3% 69.0% 72.0% 78.5% Pedestrians 9.3% 5.6% 12.5% 5.8% 7.3% 4.7% Motorcycles 15.8% 14.8% 12.9% 4.7% 7.7% 6.5% Mopeds 5.1% 10.0% 3.2% 7.5% - - Bicycles 4.4% 4.0% 5.8% 7.5% 1.3% 3.0% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Fatality Proportion 2.2% 1.6% 3.5% Data on moped crashes was reported separately to motorcycles in Italy and Sweden but not relevant in Australia (mopeds are generally not available in Australia). Most strikingly, Vulnerable Road User crashes varied across these three regions; from as low as 14-16% for fatal and casualty cases in Australia to a high of 35-34% for Italy (34-26% in Sweden). Passenger vehicle crashes were the predominant vehicle type among all fatal and casualty crashes in all 3 countries, while motorcycles (including mopeds) were more predominate among Italian fatal and all casualties. These findings most likely reflect differences in vehicle and VRU exposure rates across the regions. While the proportion of pedestrian crashes was roughly the same in each of the 3 countries, Sweden had a much higher proportion of fatal pedestrian crashes to the others. It is not clear why this might be so and worthy of follow-up. Bicycle crashes were generally less than other VRU crashes, albeit again higher in Sweden than in Italy and Australia. This could be a function of climate differences or differences in data recording across the three regions.

7 3.2 Differences in crash region Differences in the proportion of crashes across urban and rural crash locations are illustrated in Table 3. These figures are for fatal and casualty crash outcomes combined. Table 3: Proportion of crashes by road user type, country and urban/rural environment Road User Type Italy Sweden Australia Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Trucks & buses 6.8% 15.6% 0.9% 6.9% 1.3% 7.1% Passenger vehicles 53.1% 62.9% 32.0% 70.4% 71.2% 79.0% Pedestrians 7.1% 2.3% 29.3% 6.5% 10.4% 1.4% Motorcycles 16.4% 11.2% 15.9% 11.8% Mopeds 12.0% 5.2% 4.9% 2.6% 10.0% 11.5% Bicycles 4.6% 2.8% 17.1% 1.7% 7.0% 1.0% Totals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Total Proportion 69.3% 30.7% 51.4% 48.6% 82.3% 17.7% The proportions of urban and rural crash location varied considerably across the three regions; urban crashes were most frequent in Australia (82.3%) and Italy (69.3%) while rural crash locations were almost equally frequent with urban crashes in Sweden. While not shown here, the proportion of fatal crashes in urban areas was higher for Sweden than either Australia or Italy, reflecting again a possible increase in vulnerability and risks of VRUs in these locations and/or differences in recording criteria. 3.3 Differences between Single and Multiple Collisions Table 4: Proportion of crashes by road user type, country and single/multiple vehicles Road User Type Italy Sweden Australia Single Multiple Single Multiple Single Multiple Trucks & buses 9.6% 11.4% 8.4% 7.4% 7.5% 7.7% Passenger vehicles 70.9% 63.8% 85.2% 85.3% 70.5% 82.2% Pedestrians 0% 8.1% 0% 2.8% 0% 5.7% Motorcycles/Mopeds 19.6% 16.6% 6.4% 4.5% 22.0% 4.4% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Total Proportion 25.3% 74.7% 32% 68% 13.5% 86.5% NB: Not possible to breakdown further as Sweden do not separate single and multiple moped and bicycle crashes

8 It was not possible to carry out a full analysis of single and multiple vehicle crashes here as the Swedish figures did not breakdown moped and bicycle crashes this way. However, for the other vehicles, the proportions of single and multiple collisions varied considerably across the regions, ranging from 13.5% urban in Australia, 25.3% in Italy, and 32% in Sweden. There were differences, in the proportions of motorcycle crashes where Australia and Italy reported much higher single vehicle crashes than Sweden (3-times) while Italy reported higher multiple crashes involving motorcycles (3.7 times) both Sweden and Australia. Clearly, the differences in crash location is having some effect here (rural crashes tend to be at higher severity than urban ones) as well as any increased vulnerability. 3.4 Collision Configurations The next series of analyses focuses on who collides with who for the fatal and all casualty cases combined in multi-vehicle collisions. Table 5: Proportion of multi-vehicle fatal crashes by road user type, Italy Multi-Vehicle Crashes Trucks & Buses Passenger Vehicles Peds Motor Cycles Mopeds Bicycles Trucks & Buses 1.1% Passenger vehicle 8.7% 39.3% Pedestrians 0.9% 7.4% 0% Motorcycles 1.8% 17.7% 1.3% 0.8% - - Mopeds 1.1% 12.3% 0.9% 0.8% 0.4% - Bicycles 0.6% 4.1% 0.1% 0.4% 0.3% 0.1% Totals 14.2% 80.7% 2.2% 2.0% 0.7% 0.1% Table 5 shows that passenger vehicle collisions in Italy with all other partners predominated, accounting for almost 81% of all multi-vehicle collisions. The most common crash partner for a passenger vehicle collision was another passenger vehicle. Multi-vehicle VRU crashes in Italy accounted for roughly 50% of these cases, the majority being with a passenger vehicle, a truck or a bus (45.8%). Not surprising, two-wheel vehicles were the principle VRU vehicle type in these collisions with passenger vehicles (20% for motorcycles and 13% for mopeds). Only a very small 5% of these cases involved a VRU striking another VRU.

9 Table 6: Proportion of multi-vehicle crashes by road user type, Sweden Multi-Vehicle Crashes Trucks & Buses Passenger Vehicles Peds Motor Cycles Bicycles Trucks & Buses 0.9% Passenger vehicles 7.2% 60.1% Pedestrians 0.6% 6.4% 0% - - Motorcycles & mopeds 0.4% 8.4% 0.6% 1.6% - Bicycles 0.4% 8.7% 0.8% 0.7% 4.7% Totals 9.6% 83.5% 1.4% 2.3% 4.7% In Sweden, the situation is quite different, as shown in Table 6. Here, the proportion of passenger vehicle crashes is much higher with other passenger vehicles and less with motorcycles and mopeds. There was a noticeable increase in bicycle crashes in Sweden over those in Italy (4.7% vs 0.1%). VRU collisions with trucks, buses and passenger vehicles account for 25% of all multiple vehicle crashes with only 8% of crashes among themselves. Many of these differences can probably be explained to some degree by differences in exposure and possibly climatic differences between both countries. Table 7: Proportion of multi-vehicle fatal crashes by road user type, Australia Multi-Vehicle Crashes Trucks & Buses Passenger Vehicles Peds Motor Cycles Bicycles Trucks & Buses 1.0% Passenger vehicles 9.2% 62.5% Pedestrians 0.9% 9.5% 0% - - Motorcycles & mopeds 0.6% 6.9% 0.2% 0.5% - Bicycles 0.9% 7.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% Totals 12.6% 86.3% 0.4% 0.6% 0.1% The third and final analysis of who-hits-who relates to crashes in Australia in Table 7. Clearly, practically all multiple vehicle collisions in this region involved passenger vehicles and trucks (99%). Vulnerable Road User collisions accounted for 27.3% of these crashes most of which were

10 with a passenger vehicle. Pedestrians and cyclists seemed to be the most common VRU killed or seriously casualty in these figures, while motorcycles were involved in only 8.2% of these crashes. Given that motorcycles in Australia comprise around 3% of the total motor vehicles registered in 2006 [11], this also confirms their vulnerability and potential over-involvement rates. 3.5 Age Group The final analysis of the VRU figures across the three regions was to compare the overall findings for all ages with those of young drivers and riders. The fatality proportions are shown in Table 8 and the equivalent all injured proportions in Table 9. Road User Type Table 8: Proportion of fatal injured by road user type and country Italy Sweden Australia All ages 0-25yrs All ages 0-25yrs All ages 0-25yrs Trucks & buses 5.9% 2.4% 5.4% 2.7% 11.7% 2.7% Passenger vehicles 47.5% 56.1% 60.3% 67.7% 72.0% 65.0% Pedestrians 13.1% 4.9% 12.5% 9.3% 7.3% 11.7% Motorcycles 20.7% 22.5% 12.9% 11.4% Mopeds 6.6% 11.7% 3.2% 6.6% 7.7% 18.1% Bicycles 6.0% 2.5% 5.8% 2.4% 1.3% 2.4% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Road User Type Table 9: Proportion of all injured by road user type and country Italy Sweden Australia All ages 0-25yrs All ages 0-25yrs All ages 0-25yrs Trucks & buses 4.3% 2.2% 5.5% 4.3% 7.3% 4.5% Passenger vehicles 57.6% 55.2% 69.0% 62.9% 78.5% 84.6% Pedestrians 6.4% 4.6% 5.8% 5.9% 4.7% 4.3% Motorcycles 16.6% 13.9% 4.7% 3.1% Mopeds 10.9% 21.0% 7.5% 16.6% 6.5% 3.9% Bicycles 4.2% 3.1% 7.5% 7.1% 3.0% 2.7% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

11 The figures for fatal injured in Australia and Italy show higher proportion of car and truck deaths for all and younger road users than for the other two regions as reported earlier, with more young driver occupant deaths than those for all ages, as well for Italy and Sweden. However, there were noticeably higher proportions of VRU deaths For Italy and Sweden, especially among younger motor cyclists and mopeds. Of some concern, was the higher death and serious injury proportions among young motorcycle and moped riders in Italy and Sweden, irrespective of differences in the level of exposure. Clearly, preventing motorcycle fatalities must be a priority in all these two regions, as well as for young riders of mopeds in Italy. Pedestrian death proportions were also quite high in all three countries and tending to be higher among all ages than younger road users in Italy and Sweden. It has been reported previously that the risk of a pedestrian death per population is higher among the elderly [17] which would help to explain these findings. The opposite finding for Australia is difficult to explain except to note that this difference is not so apparent among all injured, suggesting younger fatal pedestrian crashes occur at higher speeds in this country - speed limits in urban areas in Australia are among the highest in the world [18]. The proportions of pedestrian deaths were higher than for the all injured in the three regions, confirming an increased vulnerability for these unprotected road users. 4. General Discussion This study set out to examine trends in Vulnerable Road User casualty crash involvement in more in Italy, Sweden and Australia to examine differences in crash patterns, types of crashes and crash configurations in detail to show the influence of culture, development and transportation patterns across these regions. The analyses performed highlighted some very interesting findings. 4.1 VRU Crashes The proportion of Vulnerable Road User crashes varied across these three regions. The lowest involvement rate was in Australia where VRUs accounted for just 14 and 16% of fatal and all casualty cases, compared to 35 and 34% for Italy and 34 and 26% in Sweden. It was argued earlier that these finding may reflects differences in vehicle and VRU exposure rates across the three regions (there is a greater proportion of motorcycle and

12 moped vehicles in Europe, compared to Australia) and possibly some climatic differences too. In 2008, for example, it was claimed that there were 11.4million motorcycle registrations in Italy or 31% of total vehicle registrations [10]. While there were some minor differences in the proportions between fatal and all injury percentages, the trends nevertheless, were relatively similar. This analysis was not able to clarify more on these effects. It may reflect differences in motorcycle population and usage across the three regions especially in Italy over the other two countries (the proportion of motorcycles compared to car registrations in Australia is only 10% of that in Italy) or other traffic or behavioural differences. A study modeling motorcycle and non-motorcycle flows entering an intersection showed an increase in motorcycle crashes as traffic density increased [13]. They also noted that approach speed, lane width, number of lanes, shoulder width and land use were also found to be statistically associated with these crashes. The differences in crash proportions in Sweden may well also be influenced by the extreme wintery conditions in Sweden for a sizeable proportion of the year. There is a need to instill in motorists and professionals in these regions a greater sense of the importance of safety and safe behaviour on their roads for Vulnerable Road Users. 4.2 Urban and Rural Locations There were also noticeable differences in where these VRU crashes happened across the three regions. In Australia, more than 80% of crashes occurred in urban areas, compared to 69% in Italy and just over 50% in Sweden. Moreover, there was a high variation in the proportion of single vehicle crashes (from 13.5% urban in Australia, 25.3% in Italy, and 32% in Sweden, although there was a surprisingly low number of multiple motorcycle crashes in Australia and Sweden compared to Italy (4.4% and 4.5% c.f. 16.6%). These findings are difficult to explain without further indepth analysis of the crashes to pinpoint possible causes. It might suggest differences in the proportion of mopeds and full motorcycles across these regions. Nevertheless, these findings have ramifications for where priority setting for intervention should lie. Pedestrian collisions in urban and rural areas are also of concern in all three regions where these crashes comprise up to 17% of all fatalities. Of special note, almost 30% of these VRU crashes in Sweden occurred in

13 urban areas and predominantly involved a collision with a passenger vehicle which is quite alarming. The lower proportions in rural areas no doubt reflect a lesser tendency for pedestrians in country regions. Many pedestrians have variable road crossing skills, especially young children, the elderly and those with disabilities. Clearly, more needs to be done to reduce their numbers in these locations. From observation, it seems that failure on the part of motorists to pay greater respect to pedestrian movement may be part of this level of trauma but so too, the need for pedestrians to cross and walk on roads at safe locations (egg; traffic light intersections or statutory road crossing points) where motorists are likely to be more aware of their presence. 4.3 Collision Partner The analysis examined the collision partner of VRUs to throw light on any anomalies across these regions. As noted previously, passenger vehicles and trucks and buses were the predominant collision partner with VRUs in Italy (46%%) compared to figures of roughly half that in Sweden (25%) and Australia (26%). These findings point to the need for improved vehicle technology such as slower speeds, enhance braking, or better pedestrian protection of vehicles, to address this problem. It does suggest that motorcycle riders need to be more aware of other vehicles, and perhaps the need for improved braking performance, such as ABS for these units. Recent evidence suggests that this technology has the possibility of greatly reducing the number of these crashes [8] although it is not clear of their effectiveness specifically against other vehicle types. Surprisingly, though, motorcycle to motorcycle collisions were quite low in these three regions. 4.4 Age Effects The representativeness of younger VRUs was examined in this analysis across the three countries. In Australia, there were fewer young driver deaths than for all ages but a higher proportion among VRU, especially young motorcyclists and pedestrians. In Italy, there were higher proportions of younger car and motorcycle deaths and injured than for all casualties, while a particular problem for Swedes seemed to be mopeds and car occupants. Young VRU casualties were generally less than for all ages in all three regions, apart from young moped riders in Italy. This may reflect the tendency noted earlier of higher exposure of urban crashes and differing usage and vulnerability in these regions. While crashes among

14 Powered Two Wheelers (PTW) was high in Italy, the proportions of fatal and all injured moped riders outranked that of motorcyclist, highlighting the need for specific focus on these types of vehicles and crashes to ensure these younger adults are better protected in this region. Pedestrian crashes were proportionately quite high in Sweden and Italy although not necessarily among those fatally injured. This could suggest that pedestrian crashes are more problematic for older road users in urban areas, or problematic in poor weather. The proportions of pedestrian deaths were quite in all countries, confirming the increased vulnerability of these road users through lack of protection in a crash. The proportions of bicycle deaths and injured were also noticeable and worth monitoring in the years ahead as bicycle use is likely to continue to grow. The earlier finding reported by the ETSC [6] that cycling children and elderly pedestrians were the most at-risk group of VRU has some support from these findings, although motorcyclists and moped users seemed to be even more of concern generally in Europe. 5. Countermeasures The findings from this analysis raise a number of potential opportunities for counter-measures to address this growing burden of death and injury to Vulnerable Road Users. 5.1 Motorcyclists There are a number of potential countermeasures to address motorcycle crashes. ABS technology seems to offer good benefits in preventing the crash from happening, as well as better positioning the motorcycle if a crash in unavoidable [8]. Moreover, training programs to better prepare riders (especially novice ones) seem to have meet with some success [15]. Moped riders in Italy and Sweden often involve very young riders who would seem to be a particular target group for improved training prior to licensing. Graduated licensing for these road users would be worthy of further consideration. There are also engineering countermeasures to improve outcome such as roadside barriers, separate motorcycle lanes, and Black-Spot motorcycle road treatments. Rider s helmets that provide superior head and face protection and protective riding equipment are critical for mitigating injury. Finally, reducing travel speed, which will reduce the likelihood of a crash

15 and/or reduce injury through better energy management, would also be very helpful, although it may prove difficult to get this group to comply. 4.2 Pedestrians Countermeasures to aide pedestrian safety are less frequent and often involve primary safety. Barriers to prevent pedestrian movements in particularly hazardous locations have been used with relative success, and more distinctive and frequent pedestrian crossings can help stream pedestrians. Traffic signals at pedestrian crossing at roadsides aide the elderly and disabled to cross at busy city roads and intersections. 4.3 All Road Users Most Western countries have acknowledged that to achieve substantial decrease in the number of fatal and serious injury crashes, there is need for greater education, awareness and advocacy programmes, improved legislation and policies to reduce injury accidents and fatalities to the minimum level. Adopting a Vision Zero approach is necessary to help achieve these targets. Legislation that establishes traffic law and the related sanctions needs to be framed so as to target the factors that most increase road risk. Sanctions applicable for exceeding urban speed limits need strengthening the practice that most endangers vulnerable road users. 6. Conclusions Public policy response to this growing epidemic in developing countries has been muted at national and international levels and policy makers need to recognise this growing problem as a public health crisis and design appropriate policy responses. With growing usage of VRU transport in developing countries, this burden is expected to become even larger in the years ahead in these regions without urgent attention. The databases chosen for these analyses are representative samples of police-reported real-world crash data in these three countries. While they are the best available databases in these regions for conducting detailed analyses of crash and injury outcomes, they are nevertheless quite varied in terms of the data collected, the criteria applied and the level of comprehensiveness. Thus, these analyses need to be viewed with some caution in the light of potential deficiencies. In particular, the underreporting of serious and minor injured VRUs is claimed to be as high as 50% to 65% of cases for pedestrians and 80% for cyclists [3].

16 Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to Mr. Antonio Bagalà with the cooperation of Mrs. Emanuela Di Pasquale for undertaking and providing the Italian data and for the generous cooperation provided by the Automobile Club of Italy. We also thank Dr. Julie Lahausse of the Monash University Accident Research Centre in Australia for her valuable assistance in providing the Australian data analysis. Bibliography 1. European Transport Safety Council (2009). Vulnerable road user organizations in cooperation across Europe a Europe-wide campaign to protect vulnerable road users, Voice campaign, 2. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Road Deaths Australia: 2007 Statistical Summary, Road Safety Report No. 1, Australian Government; Canberra. 3. Voice (2006). Vulnerable road users in Italy, Fact Sheet, European Transport Safety Council, Brussels. 4. CARE Project Database, 2004: 5. World Health Organisation (2004). World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention, The World Health Organisation, Genève, Switzerland. 6. ETSC (2005). How can Mediterranean countries improve the safety of Vulnerable Road Users, SEC Belt Monitor No. 3. European Transport Safety Council, Brussels. 7. Mustafa N.M. (2006). Overview of current road safety situation in Malaysia, Statistical Report to the Highway Planning Unit, Road Safety Section, Ministry of Works, Jalan Sultan Salahuddin, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 8. Rizzi M., Strandroth J. & Tingvall C. (2009). The effectiveness of antilock brake systems on motorcycles in reducing real-life crashes and injuries, Traffic Injury Prevention, Vol 10, pp European Road Safety Day (2009). The European Road Safety Charter is a European participatory platform made to resolve the road safety problems that they encounter in their day-to-day ACI (2010). Incidental data provided by the Automobile Club of Italy from data obtained from their official statistics in Italy. 11. ABS (2006). Motor Vehicle Census in Australia (9309.0), Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, Australia. 12. ATSB 92008). Road Deaths in Australia: 2007 Statistical Summary, Road Safety Report No. 1, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Australian Government, Canberra, Australia.

17 13. Harnen S., Radin Umar, RS., Wong, SV and. Wan Hashim L. (2003). Motorcycle crash prediction model for non-signalized intersections, IATSS Research, Vol 27(2), pp Vinand M Nantulya, Michael R Reich (2002). The neglected epidemic: road traffic injuries in developing countries, BMJ Vol 324, pp N. Haworth, N., Smith, R. & Kowadlo, N. (2000). Motorcycle training in Victoria: Evaluation of rider training curriculum in Victoria, Report 165, Monash University Accident Research Centre, Clayton, Australia. 16. Baldanzini N. (2010). Analysis of motorcycle crashes in the MAIDS database, Report on Activities in Work Package 2, MYMOSA Workshop, Motorcycle and Motorcyclist Safety, Marie Currie Action Program, Amsterdam, 4 February Oxley, J., Charlton, J., & Fildes, B. (2005). The effect of cognitive impairment on older pedestrian behaviour and crash risk (Vol. Report No. 244): Monash University Accident Research Centre, Melbourne, Australia 18. Fildes B., Langford J. & Szwed N. (2009). Balance between Harm Reduction and Mobility in Setting Speed Limits: Stage 2 Report, Austroads, Sydney, Australia. 19. Wegman F., Lynam D. & Nilsson G. (SUNflower: a comparative study of the developments of road safety in Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, wer_paper.pdf