Publications
11-20 of 28
-
-
Road Users
Drink-Driving: A Road Safety Manual for Decision-Makers and Practitioners (2nd ed.)
November 2022
-
-
Speed Management
Road Crash Trauma, Climate Change, Pollution and the Total Costs of Speed: Six Graphs That Tell the Story
July 2022
-
-
Speed Management
Guide for Determining Readiness for Speed Cameras and Other Automated Enforcement
July 2022
-
To briefly identify the powerful practical value of AE in saving lives and reducing injuries.
-
To identify issues and criteria to be considered before commencing automated enforcement. To identify steps to be taken to achieve readiness for automated enforcement. To identify issues to improve existing automated enforcement systems.
-
To provide a checklist to ensure adequate consideration is given to issues to assess readiness to implement an AE system or improve an existing system.
- Evaluate the effectiveness of the reduced speed limits in terms of crash reduction through a before-after study.
- Examine if the speed limit change had different effects across different crash types, user types, and crash severities.
- Evaluate the impact of speed limit change on transit speed through a before-after assessment.
- Develop appropriate and actionable recommendations for departments of transportation in developing countries.
-
-
-
Traffic crashes are a leading cause of death and serious injury worldwide; most notably, they are the leading cause of death and serious injury among young people aged 5–29. Higher motor vehicle speeds increase the likelihood and severity of crashes.
-
Low-speed zones have emerged as one of the most promising strategies for speed management. They can be appropriate in many different contexts and at various scales, as exemplified by case studies of successful projects around the world.
-
Low-speed zones in cities need to be well-planned, well-designed, and well-built, to maximize safety and other benefits.
-
Physical traffic-calming measures and target speeds of 30 kilometers/hour (km/h) or lower have the greatest proven safety benefits.
-
Key considerations for implementation include stakeholder engagement, site selection (including risk: pedestrian/vulnerable road user presence), enforcement, evaluation, and the adaptation of basic principles for low-speed zone design to the local context.
Safe, quality helmets reduce the risk of death in a road crash by over six times, and reduce the risk of brain injury by up to 74%. Head trauma is the leading cause of death for riders, and motorcycles continue to proliferate rapidly. Yet the use of helmets in many low and middle-income countries remains low.
The second edition of the Helmets Manual offers guidance to help decision makers and practitioners put in place the comprehensive set of laws, regulations and actions needed to increase the use of safe, quality helmets to save lives.
This manual provides guidance for decision-makers and practitioners to reduce the prevalence of drink driving and associated road trauma. It draws on experience from countries that have succeeded in achieving and sustaining reductions in alcohol-related road trauma, and includes recommendations for developing and implementing drink driving legislation, and advice on how to monitor and evaluate progress.
Road traffic crashes result in an estimated 1.35 million deaths and 50 million injuries worldwide per year with over 90 percent of these occurring in Low-Middle Income Countries (LMICs). Aside from the obvious pain and suffering this inflicts on individuals and communities, these deaths and injuries also place a large financial burden particularly on LMICs, by slowing economic growth.
The scale of the current response to this continuing crisis does not match the size of the problem. In addition, limited road safety resources are often expended on ineffective or suboptimal interventions. While road safety knowledge has improved over recent decades, there is still a need to improve decision making when selecting and applying effective evidence-based road safety interventions. Effective interventions are those that reduce fatal and serious injuries.
The World Bank's Global Road Safety Facility (GRSF) has developed this evidence-based guide on “What Works and What Does Not Work” in road safety in response to the critical need for effective evidence-based solutions.
This guide has been prepared to help readers understand that not all road safety interventions are equally effective and that what appear to be “common-sense” approaches to selecting road safety interventions will often not be the best. Although some provide benefits, others have very limited or even negative impacts, despite being commonly—and mistakenly—recommended or accepted. The guide offers a range of recommendations with a focus on interventions in LMICs, although the information may also be of relevance to all countries. The contents will be valuable to those working on road safety at policy or practitioner levels, including World Bank technical team leaders and others who seek to establish, expand, or improve road safety programs in LMICs.
The guide sets knowledge on evidence-based interventions within a “Safe System” context, providing advice on each of the Safe System pillars (road safety management, safe roads, safe speeds, safe vehicles, safe road users, and post-crash care) while recognizing that evidence-based solutions must be drawn from across pillars to produce effective road safety outcomes. At the core of this document is a summary table with an overview of beneficial and non-beneficial interventions based on sound scientific evidence. This is followed by more detailed information including case studies and references to the evidence base to support the summary.
Many safe road interventions are recommended for adoption, including integrated public transport, roadside and central barrier systems, medians, infrastructure to support appropriate operational speed for road users, roundabouts, grade separation and interventions to reduce exposure to risk at intersections, pedestrian footpaths and crossings, separated bicycle and motorcycle facilities, and traffic signs and line marking (including audio-tactile line marking). Some of these are highly effective, with up to a 70 or 80 percent reduction in fatalities and severe injuries (for example, safety barriers and roundabouts).
Various speed-related interventions also produce significant benefits, with some able to almost eliminate death and serious injury. Examples of effective speed interventions include traffic calming (including humps and chicanes), roundabouts, raised intersections and crossings, gateway treatments, lower speed limits (including 30 km/h (20 mph) zones for pedestrians) and speed cameras.
A variety of road user-based interventions have been implemented over many years, with effective examples including extensive supervised on-road practice and/or graduated licensing systems as part of the driver-licensing system, increased age for driving license eligibility, hazard perception training and testing, public education and campaigns as part of an integrated strategy (especially communicating enforcement to increase general deterrence), enforcement, penalties, alcohol interlocks, fatigue and speed monitoring, and increased helmet wearing rates.
Key vehicle-based interventions include applying minimum vehicle safety standards and vehicle ratings (through the Global New Car Assessment Program, or “NCAP”), seat belts, periodic vehicle maintenance, daytime running lights, under-run guards on trucks, Electronic Stability Control, and other advanced vehicle technologies.
Enhanced post-crash care can also produce better road safety outcomes, including systems to improve emergency response time, better emergency care, improved first aid skills for the public, and improved hospital care.
Equally important, the report also identifies clear examples where interventions are not effective. The worst of these are interventions that increase risk. These include increasing travel speed without improving quality of safety infrastructure, most forms of post-license driver and rider education and training, and many (but not all) forms of regular school-based driver education (such as those that seek to increase car-handling skills). The increase in risk is typically because such initiatives increase the level of confidence leading to an increase in risk taking. Other interventions that have no demonstrated safety benefits are to be avoided. These include license schemes through application or payment, training programs or education within schools that aim to improve road safety knowledge (including ad hoc visits by road safety experts or enthusiasts), and education campaigns conducted in isolation.
There are effective alternative interventions for each of these as described within this document, and these should be applied instead. It is extremely important that resources are not wasted on ineffective interventions on behalf of road safety but rather that evidence-based road safety interventions are employed.
There are a variety of documents available on the issue of road safety intervention effectiveness, many of which are referenced here. However, there are some key points of differences and added value in this guide, including a synthesis of the evidence on a broad range of interventions and a contrast between effective and noneffective interventions, allowing readers to compare options. Where noneffective interventions are identified, viable effective interventions are provided thereby supporting decision making. The guide also provides direct advice to those working in LMICs, drawing on key sources of information where this is available. Importantly, concise yet robust evidence is provided across each of the Safe System pillars.
There is a need to continue building the knowledge base on effective road safety interventions, particularly in LMICs where there are a number of gaps in knowledge. The contents of this guide represent a useful, up-to-date summary of current knowledge for application.
The World Bank estimates a significant funding gap in road safety of 260 billion to achieve SDG 3.6 and 11.2 in the next ten years, and recognizes that this gap cannot be closed through public funding alone and thus mobilization of private capital is required. The impacts of road traffic crashes reach far into the economy and can cost L/MICs as much as 6% of their GDP. The costs of a road traffic crash do not end at the roadside; they create ripple effects throughout the wider economy. Loss of income, property damage, insurance premiums, loss of taxes, and burdens on the health sector are just some of the far-reaching costs associated with road traffic crashes. Road traffic crashes can cost countries as much as 6 percent of their GDP and trap families in poverty as they lose income generating potential and focus on providing lifetime care.
This report examines the potential for private capital mobilization to close this gap. The report investigates the market failure to appropriately account for the cost of road crashes, which prevents private capital from flowing to road safety investments. The growth of socially responsible investing and the sustainable finance market offers a new opportunity to address this market failure. The report proposes different business models and financing instruments to channel private investment into road safety projects. These investment structures consist of subnational, public-private partnerships (PPPs) and corporate investments that can leverage the growing sustainable finance market, including social and sustainability-linked financings (SLFs).
The report also develops indicators that can be used to tie the cost of financing to the attainment of road safety targets, incentivizing borrowers to commit to road safety as part of SLFs. The report examines the enabling environment for structuring investable road safety projects in a sample of countries, looking at the barriers and opportunities, and proposing risks and mitigation strategies, like blended finance mechanisms and stable revenue sources, for long-term sustainability of road safety investments.
What is the real cost of speeding on people and the environment? These 6 graphs tell the story ⌵︎
The impacts of speed on the safety of road users, on congestion, on pollution, and on total costs of road travel are broadly misunderstood: often based on wrong assumptions, with effects taken as self-evident, failure to consider multiple impacts, externalization of costs by many stakeholders, and under-estimation of impacts (especially economic costs of higher speeds). The purpose of this brief note is to provide information on these relationships relevant to fundamental road transport policies, design, and operation. Well-established evidence shows the importance of managing travel speeds for road safety, for efficiency, for improved inclusion, and for greenhouse gas (GHG) and other emissions. Thus, speed management is a strong policy lever for the breadth of issues which must be addressed for sustainable mobility.
Reduced speeds of travel represent a major, yet under-appreciated, opportunity to improve safety, climate change impacts of travel, health, inclusion, the economy, and in some circumstances, congestion. Speed management can be achieved through a range of interventions including road infrastructure and vehicle technology, as well as enforcement and promotion.
The six graphs presented in this note tell a powerful story, across the range of these benefits of speed management.
This publication is also available in:
Download the document in English
Download the document in French
Download the document in Spanish
In many countries around the world, deficiencies in data or data quality impair evidence-based road safety policy making. While many countries collect road safety data, the collection is not necessarily comprehensive. Further, many countries can be unaware of data gaps in their system, which prevents them from soundly analyzing their road safety problems. Therefore, road safety data definitions and collection methods must converge into standard international criteria, thus allowing for comparisons in space - across countries - and in time.
This is the raison d’etre of regional road safety observatories, which have been developed, for example, in Latin America (OISEVI), Africa (ARSO), and Asia-Pacific (APRSO). They present an opportunity for joint regional efforts to improve, in a harmonized way, road safety data collection and analysis. Regional road safety observatories promote the adoption of a common set of road safety indicators based on common definitions and serve as an avenue to assist countries in improving the management of their crash data systems.
This document is designed to support reviewers in the assessment of road safety data collection; the complete range of safety data should be considered. This task can be complicated because collection of road safety data is often not achieved by activities dedicated to this purpose, but rather through piggybacks on other sources. For example, activity reports from police or hospitals are used to provide material for legal or medical purposes. The routines involved frequently have a long history in which gathering reliable and complete statistics has had secondary priority, at best. The various actors involved reflect the complex structure of a country’s judicial and executive system, which, generally, are not coordinated. Consequently, any review of the data collection process requires some “detective work.”
This guide has been prepared to assist a jurisdiction to determine the level of readiness to move to automated enforcement (AE). Speed cameras enforcing speed limits are a common application of AE and there are many systemic legal and operational elements that must be in place before AE can be effective. For example, an accurate image of a speeding vehicle, in the absence of robust driver licensing and vehicle registration systems, is of little road safety value. Importantly, automated speed enforcement should be considered as one part of a comprehensive speed management approach that includes road infrastructure and roadside policing as well. The management of speed is a fundamental element of the Safe System.
Aims of this document:
Other illegal behaviours, including disobeying a red light signal, mobile or cellular phone use, incorrect lane use, and non-restraint use can also be detected using an automated enforcement approach. However, this document applies specifically to automated speed enforcement, because speed management requires significant attention worldwide and plays a critical role in reducing road traffic deaths and injuries.
Document also available in French, Portuguese, Vietnamese and Spanish.
Significant research has been undertaken on how changes in speed limit—for example, the introduction of 30 kilometers per hour, or kph (20 miles per hour, or mph) speed limits—impact safety both when combined with, and without "traffic-calming" engineering treatments such as speed humps or raised platforms. However, most of the studies have been conducted in Australia or countries in Western Europe, with almost no recorded studies from Asia, Africa, the Americas, and Eastern Europe. Though it may be reasonable, a well-developed infrastructural environment such as that found in Korea would expect similar results as that of the western countries, a study originating in Asia could have a strong demonstration effect and prove very convincing for many Asian countries.
With this in mind, the main aim of this study is to present the findings from Korea’s reduced speed limits on safety performance and to support the establishment of suitable speed-management strategies based on a quantitative data-driven approach. The scope of the project was as follows:
To start, this report first provides a brief literature review on the concept of Safe System speed limits, and the effect of speed limit reductions as part of speed management in several countries, followed by a brief description of the evaluation methods for the before-after assessment. This is followed by a summary of the findings, a set of recommendations, limitations of this study, and finally, a capsule of future research that could be undertaken to either extend or follow up on the study.
This guide focuses on elements of safe road and roadside designs for road networks that can provide safe mobility to all road users
A substantial reduction in road deaths will only be feasible if concerted efforts are made, following the “Safe System” approach involving all elements of road safety, management, and delivery. This includes all pillars of the Safe System—starting from road safety management, safe roads and roadsides, safe speed, safe vehicles, safe road users, and post-crash care. This guide focuses on elements of safe road and roadside designs for road networks that can provide safe mobility to all road users, as well as complementary changes to improve speeds, vehicle safety, road user behaviors, and post-crash care. A balanced road design must take into account these complementary system elements to maximize safety benefits. The energy carried by a moving object is proportional to the square of its speed. A well-designed “forgiving roadside” ensures that this energy is dispersed in a crash, and as a result, less energy is transferred to the occupants.
Road infrastructure design plays a vital role in road safety outcomes. Safe infrastructure supports other road safety pillars by encouraging appropriate road user behavior (such as appropriate speed and correct lane position) and by providing a forgiving road environment if things go wrong. Poorly designed road infrastructure can give rise to dangerous road user behavior. One of the key realizations of the Safe System approach is that drivers make mistakes and will continue to do so, even if we can reduce how often these occur. This road user error has long been recognized as a significant contributor to poor road safety outcomes. However, roads of any given speed can be designed to reduce the likelihood of crashes occurring, and there is very clear evidence that the severity of outcomes when crashes do occur is significantly influenced by the road design. Even if a crash still occurs, improved road infrastructure can save many lives and prevent debilitating injuries.
The Safe System approach highlights that a shared response is required to address road safety. This means that road users will continue to take responsibility for their actions, for instance by being alert and compliant with road rules. However, it is also recognized that road managers and designers have a significant responsibility to provide a road system that protects all road users. This can be achieved through appropriate designs of roads.
Every year approximately 1.35 million people lose their lives due to road traffic crashes. In many road crashes, speed plays a key role. As a result, managing speed has taken on great importance in cities around the world.
An effective method for reducing speed and improving road safety, especially in high-risk areas, has been to establish low-speed zones. This Low-Speed Zone Guide presents strategies for planning, designing, building, and evaluating low-speed zones. The guide intends to equip communities and decision-makers with the tools to implement low-speed zones that will suit their specific context.
Highlights: