In the report of late 2001 Safe, What is Safe?, SWOV indicated how the annual number of traffic casualties could be reduced considerably. These proposals were to be regarded as an addition to the proposals as were developed in the then National Traffic and Transport Plan of the Ministry of Transport. In Safe, What is Safe?, we, among other things, indicated that raising the minimum age for riding a (light-)moped from 16 to 18 would save 35 road deaths a year. The Ministry of Transport asked SWOV to examine how realistic this measure is, as far as acceptance by the young, their parents, and the trade is concerned. Also; what would be the savings of taking less far-reaching measures. Possession and use of (light-)mopeds A quarter of the 16-17 year olds has a (light-)moped. On these, a third of all (light-)mopeds kilometres are travelled. However, the (light-)moped accounts for only 13% of the most frequently used mode of transport by the 16-18 year olds. It takes third place after the bicycle (49% share) and public transport (20%). A total of six measures have been calculated for their effects. Some of these are less far-reaching measures (Scenario 1), that are mainly aimed at controlling (light-)moped speeds. The other measures are the far-reaching ones from Safe, What is Safe?, among others, raising the minimum age to 18. Because some of the measures impose limitations in the use of (light-)mopeds, there will be shifts in the modal split. Because empirical data does not exist, assumptions have been made to determine the extent in which this will happen. The thus calculated effects are, therefore, approximate estimates. Taking this into account, the following savings in casualty numbers can be estimated in comparison with the number of (light-)moped casualties and their crash opponents in 2000/2001: - 'Scenario 1' (with, among others, the introduction of a registration number for (light-)mopeds and an adequate means of enforcement); 19 deaths and 540 in-patients (a reduction of 17% and 16% resp.) - 'Minimum age to 18 years'; 44 deaths and 1650 in-patients (a reduction of 40% and 50%, resp.) - Both measures together (with correction for overlap): 55 deaths and 1900 in-patients (a reduction of 50% and 60%, resp.). These savings are greater than in earlier SWOV calculations. They were reported in A road safety analysis of the preliminary National Traffic and Transport Plan, and Safe, What is Safe? There are two reasons for this. In the first place, the numbers spared among the crash opponents of the (light-)mopeds have been added. In the second place, it is now assumed that by raising the minimum age to 18, 50% of the 18-24 age group will no longer ride a (light-)moped; this was 10% in the report Safe, What is Safe?. Other measures, such as abolishing the scooter-shaped light-moped and obligatory helmet use for young light-mopedists 'only' save a few deaths. SWOV commissioned Young Works (an agency for youth communication in Amsterdam) to carry out the study of support among the young. The young, both urban and rural, were asked about their ideas of (light-)moped use, and about the most radical measure – raising the minimum age from 16 to 18. A quantitative as well as a qualitative study took place in October 2002. The qualitative study consisted of four discussion panels: two in Amsterdam and two in Amersfoort and surroundings. The quantitative study was part of the education project Codename Future in which 637 respondents completed a questionnaire. The results of the qualitative and quantitative studies are in agreement that there is a slightly positive support for raising the minimum age for mopedists to 18. The qualitative study shows clearly that the initial reaction of the youth will still be a strong 'no', and that they are only inclined to think carefully about it after repeated explanation about the relation between the measure and preventing serious accidents. The quantitative study shows that more than half of the youth are not directly dismissive about the measure. It was also found that living 10 kilometres from school is a critical boundary, above which the wish to (light-)moped to school increases greatly, especially among the boys; a practical reason is often given for this. However, the qualitative study indicates that, even if initially pragmatic reasons are given, there is often no real necessity, and the 'fun' element in (light-)mopeding is the most important motive. Opposing the slightly positive support, some of the youths will be very difficult to convince of the relation between the measure and prevention of serious accidents, especially if their parents also do not see it. In addition, a considerable share of the youths says that they will then ride their (light-)mopeds illegally. Young Works also measured the support among parents. A majority of them is in favour of raising the minimum age to 18. They say that the youth at 18 has a greater feeling of responsibility than at 16. A small number of parents said they were not convinced that raising the age from 16 to 18 would save so many casualties. All organizations questioned – the Amsterdam-Amstelland Police, the Traffic Safety Association 3VO, the Royal Tourist Association ANWB, the Garage Association BOVAG, and the RAI Association – are supporters of all measures in Scenario 1 (vehicle registration etc.). The registration of mopeds and light-mopeds should be introduced as quickly as possible. The ANWB, BOVAG, and RAI are opposed to far-reaching measures such as raising the minimum age to 18. The Amsterdam-Amstelland Police is a supporter. 3VO is of the opinion that the consequences of such a measure should be examined carefully once again: are there any good alternatives for this group?
Samenvatting