The current theoretical basis for estimating road accident costs is debated. It is considered that there is too much emphasis on replacing material loss and too little on the consequences of loss of health or utility. The importance of government intervention for the provision of an optimal level of road safety is discussed. The four main categories of accident are discussed and it is shown that each category contributes about the same amount to the magnitude of losses, on the basis that there are fewer (but more expensive) serious accidents and many minor accidents. This effect applied to data from the UK, Norway, Sweden and Germany and its significance is discussed. Difficulties with the contingent valuation method of estimation road accident costs in Sweden are described. Attitude to risk and willingness to pay surveys are also discussed in relation to assessing simple and complex road risk scenarios. It is suggested that cost benefit analysis could improve the efficiency of road traffic safety measures in Norway and Sweden.
Abstract