This report indicates the importance of formulating a quantitative goal. The aim is to set the constraints for further selection of `sustainable traffic safety' measures. The report discusses the difference between: (1) qualitative and quantitative methods; (2) `narrow' (corporative) and `broad' (societal) analysis; and (3) between a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Wherever possible, a CEA is preferred, because this dodges the difficult problem of finding out the benefits. Explicit attention should be given to problems related to development over time. A critical evaluation is given of the 1985 McKinsey report on the Dutch traffic safety policy. The methods used in that report to handle cost and effectiveness are discussed. One conclusion is that starting to split into target groups made it difficult to give a good estimation of effectiveness. Another conclusion is that the lifespan of countermeasures was not considered. For comparison reasons, the report describes national (Finland, Sweden), regional (the Australian state of Victoria), and local (the Danish town of Aalborg) traffic safety programmes. The report calculates the cost-effectiveness for possible traffic safety countermeasures. Experiments with cost-effectiveness analyses should be carried out on a broader scale. The comparison of different countermeasures should be included.
Samenvatting