The first report of the SUNflower project (Koornstra et al 2002) compared the safety strategies and programmes in Sweden, Britain and the Netherlands in 2000, looking both at forward strategies and the underlying reasons for the trends in traffic safety in each country between 1980 and 2000. Individual case studies were included on policies relating to drinking and driving, seatbelt wearing, low cost infrastructure improvements, and inter-urban road networks. The report identified many general similarities in approach to road safety policy but also identified differences in the way policies had been implemented. Koornstra et al showed that although overall fatality rates in these countries were similar, the rates for individual modes were more varied. They also suggested several further topics which could be investigated to help explain national differences in safety outcomes. This second study extends the investigation of the differences already identified, and explores some of the topics not covered in detail in the first study. Topics covered in this report include an update of current traffic safety situations in the SUN countries as well as case studies of Pedestrian, Cyclist, Mopedist, Motorcyclist, young driver and goods vehicle safety. These are complemented by chapters on speed management and enforcement policies, and on the characteristics that are required for effective implementation of road safety programmes. One factor fundamental to the casualty toll observed in different countries is the split in travel between different modes, as individual modes have very different risk levels. A more complicated, but an equally important factor, is the interaction between the different modes, in relation to network configuration and traffic density. These interactions and their effects are more difficult to quantity than the differences in risk between the individual modes. The overall safety performance, safety management systems, and safety cultures in the three SUN countries are fairly similar, but still individual risk differences have been observed (eg high risks for pedestrians and motorcyclists in Great Britain, for mopedists in the Netherlands, and to a lesser extent for car drivers in Sweden). (Author/publisher)
Abstract