In 1992, an overview of speeding measures was published for 80 km/h roads in support of the development, implementation and evaluation of road safety policy. Following evaluation, it was shown that this overview was not, or hardly used. The question therefore arose with the Dutch state government as to how recently acquired knowledge could be effectively transferred to the implementation of speeding policy to allow this knowledge to actually be put into practice. In order to discover what knowledge the implementors of road safety policy require and what form of presentation they prefer, interviews were conducted with several road maintenance authorities and other bodies closely involved in the application of road safety measures, where the process of taking measures was more closely examined. The steps distinguished in this report are as follows: setting priorities with respect to road safety; approach and choice of measures; implementation of measures; financing; and activation of other parties. In all steps of the process, large differences appeared to exist between municipalities, provinces, police regions and Provincial Road Safety Boards (ROVs). These differences are due to various factors, such as the level of priority given to road safety, the personal interest in road safety and the degree to which parties motivate each other to take measures. Measures can be instigated via two forms of approach: curative or preventative. In general, it can be said that all bodies involved are most satisfied with the preventative method. The 'ad hoc' solutions are not described, as they are mainly granted in response to local protests, but generally have little or no long-term effect. Not all bodies put road safety high on the agenda. Many initiatives have been instigated to improve this: working groups, project groups, and courses. The impression is given that more, and more effective, measures are taken in regions where these types of activity are taking place. Also, the amount of time and manpower available to promote road safety has a bearing. Amongst the police, the effort expended on road safety appears to differ per region. In general, the recent internal reorganisation seems to have led to a reduction in local police familiarity. However, the greatest obstacle is that, as regards prioritising, road safety often 'loses' from the offensive against crime. All bodies seem to agree that the structural setting aside of road safety tasks would be the most effective solution to this problem. This would have to be expressed in terms of the allocation of permanent positions to perform this task. The general opinion was that the transfer of knowledge should preferably be realised through personal contacts. The missionary role was named in this context by various groups: someone who personally goes 'on the road' to activate, stimulate and support road maintenance authorities or police with respect to road safety policy. Particularly to stimulate municipalities, more time and manpower should be made available within the ROVs. In some provinces, this method has been applied for some time and good results have been achieved. In addition, a need was expressed for the exchange of information between the various bodies. It is thought that this can be achieved through structural cooperation relationships, in which representatives meet more often that is the case at present. There is also a need for a kind of overview of all experiments that have been performed, so that when choosing road safety measures, it is not necessary to 'invent the wheel' all over again. (A)
Samenvatting