project ltss-road safety rpt dec 09 v2

7/27/2019 Project LTSS-Road Safety Rpt Dec 09 v2

1/17

RS SitRep December 2009 1 WCATRACECA Land Transport Safety and Security Project 7501

EUROPEAID/126786/C/SV/MULTI

Land Transport Safety and Security

for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan,

Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan

Interim Report n 2

Annex IX Situation Report on Road

Safety

January 2010

The European Unions TRACECA programmefor Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova,

Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan


2/17


TTTAAABBBLLLEEE OOOFFF CCCOOONNNTTTEEENNNTTTSSS

1. Introduct ion ............................................................................................................. 3

2. Road Safety Performance, TRACECA States ....................................................... 3

3. Institutional Elements of Road Safety, TRACECA States ................................... 9

4. Recent/Current Road Safety Projects, TRACECA States

5. Conclusions and the Way Forward ..................................................................... 11

NNN...BBB... wherever it is read ECRegulationsshould be Read EU regulations


3/17


Road Safety Situation Report for TRACECA States

1. Introduction

1.1 This document provides a Situation Report (SitRep) on the progress made to date in collecting dataon road safety performance and on relevant road safety projects for the various TRACECA Member States.The approach to the data collection exercise was outlined in the first LTSS Road Safety Mission Report,dated September 2009, and is shown graphically in Figure 1.1.

1.2 Much of the data collected has been collated from the recent World Health Organization (WHO)Global Status Report on Road Safety, J une 2009, which included a country-by-country assessment atglobal level, identifies the 2007 situation in TRACECA States, and identified gaps and sets a baseline tomeasure future progress. In addition, a more recent publication: Confronting Death on Wheels MakingRoads Safe in Europe and Central Asia, Nov 2009

1, has been used to update and expand specific

information about road traffic crashes and institutional elements of road safety, including legislation,responsible (lead) agencies, and a planned framework for improving road safety performance.

1.3 This Report is in four parts; the first part covers a review of data collected to date on road safetyperformance in each of the TRACECA Member States. This includes comparisons, where possible, of roadcrash information, identification of key road safety issues, and also notes where it has not been possible toobtain information as yet. The second part of the Report covers a review of institutional topics pertaining toroad safety, including details of current legislation, identification of the lead agency with responsibility forroad safety, availability of a formal road safety strategy and/or targets, action plan, etc. The third part of theReport provides information that has been obtained on recent, ongoing or planned road safety projects forspecific TRACECA Member States. The final part of the document provides an indication of plans for thenext phase of the data collection activities, leading to the development of the LTSS Action Plan on roadsafety, which will be harmonized to support the Building Blocks identified in the Death on Wheelsdocument as required for the implementation of an effective Road Safety Programme.

1.4 The September 2009 LTSS Mission Report also made mention of the high-level Conference and

Exhibition on Road Safety which was to take place in Moscow during November 2009, under thesponsorship of the World Bank Global Road Safety Facility, World Health Organisation (WHO), and the FIAFoundation. The Conference was entitled the First Global Ministerial Conference on Road SafetyMoscow 2009 and had the theme of Time for Action . The Conference targeted Russian-speakingdelegates and coincided with the publication the WHOs Global Status Report on Road Safety. A copy ofthe Moscow Declaration that was one of the key outputs of the Conference is included as the Annex to thisdocument.

2. Road Safety Performance, TRACECA States

2.1 Traffic Accident Data. Information on traffic accidents (road crashes) and, in particular, on thenumbers of traffic fatalities and non-fatal personal injuries that have been recorded in the TRACECAMember States (and other countries for comparison purposes), has been obtained from two main sources.For 2007, this has been the WHOs Global Status Report on Road Safety, published in J une 2009. For the1996 data, the source is the UKs Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) Report No. 445 Estimating GlobalRoad Fatalities, which was published in 2000. The results are presented in Table 2.1, with the FatalityRisks

2 for 2007 in each country being shown graphically in Figure 2.1.

2.2 The results show that, in all TRACECA States except for Tajikistan, (Bulgaria, Romania, andTurkey) the number of traffic fatalities has increased in the period from 1996-2007, whereas fatalities in allfour EU comparators (i.e. Austria, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden) have decreased. Similarly, in terms offatality risks, all TRACECA States except Tajikistan (and Turkey) have experienced an increase during the

1 Death on Wheels, Europe and Central Asia Region, Global Road Safety Facility, World Bank, Nov 20092

Fatality Risk is defined as the number of traffic fatalities each year per 100,000 population


4/17


LTSS Road SafetyComponent

Data/informationCollection

Road Safety Conferences,Workshops, etc

EC Directive on RoadInfrastructure Safety

Management

Information on roadsafety projects for

TRACECA MemberStates*

Data on road safetyin TRACECA

Member States#

Identify common road safetyissues, concerns, needs and

constraints

Analyse results, conduct gapanalysis, assess capacity

building needs, (e.g.workshops, training, technical

assistance)

Develop LTSS road safety workprogramme of capacity building

tasks and activities

Reports to/consultationswith TRACECA

PermanentSecretariat/NS,Stakeholders in

TRACECA MemberState, IFIs, etc.

Figure1.1: Approach to LTSS Road Safety Component

Notes:

* Road safety projects for TRACECA Member States funded by EC, World Bank,ADB, bilateral agencies, etc., including objectives, duration, technical subjectareas, capacity building activities, etc.

#Updated data related to the WHO Global Status Report on Road Safety


5/17


6/17


period from 1996-2007; the highest being in Ukraine (by over 3 times), Georgia (over 1.8 times),Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan (both over 1.7 times). Fatality risks in all four EU comparators werereduced by about one-third in the same period.

Figure 2.1: Traffic Fatality Risks by Country, 2007

2.3 Table 2.1 also presents limited information on Fatality Rates3

in TRACECA Member Statescompared to four EU countries. The results show that the fatality rates appear to have decreased in the

period from 1996 to 2007 in all those TRACECA States with available data, except for Georgia, in spite of theevident significant increases in motor vehicles in all TRACECA countries. It is also noted that the fatality ratesfor all TRACECA countries in 2007 are very significantly higher than those shown for the four EU countries.

2.4 It is also important to comment on the phenomenon of under-reporting of traffic accidents, which iscommonplace in many countries and serves to make the international comparison of official road safetystatistics rather difficult. International research and experience has shown that data on injuries and ondamage-only accidents is particularly prone to under-reporting. In addition, as shown in Table 2.1, thedefinition of an accident fatality is also different in many countries. In the TRACECA Region, the internationaldefinition of a traffic fatality (i.e. death within 30 days of a traffic accident and as a result of being involved in acrash) is used in only Tajikistan, Ukraine, (Bulgaria and Romania). The other 8 TRACECA Member States(plus Russian Federation and Turkey) all have different definitions, which should have adjustment factors

3Fatality Rate is defined as the number of traffic fatalities in a particular year per 10,000 registered motor vehicles

Traffic Fatality Risks, 2007

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyzstan

Ukraine

Turkmenistan

Georgia

Moldova

Tajikistan

Armenia

Azerbai jan

Uzbekistan

Russian Federation

Turkey

Bulgaria

Romania

Aust ria

Sweden

Norway

Netherlands

FatalityRisks

Countries

Source: WHO Global Status Report on Road Safety, 2009


7/17


applied (see Table 2.1) in order to enable a comparison with data from other countries using the internationaldefinition.

2.5 Fatalities by Road User. Table 2.2 shows the percentage of traffic fatalities in TRACECA States bytype of road users, which clearly indicates the vulnerability of pedestrians in the majority of countries

Table 2.2: Percentage of Traffic Fatalities in TRACECA and EU States by Road User Type, 2007Country Pedestrians Bicyclists Motorcyclists Motorized 4-Wheelers

Drivers PassengersArmenia 39 1 n/a 34 26Azerbaijan 38 1 1 28 31Georgia 28 1 Unspecified Unspecified UnspecifiedKazakhstan 37 1 n/a 23 32Kyrgyzstan 43 1 4 43 n/aMoldova 34 2 4 25 33Tajikistan 44 6 1 18 30Turkmenistan 29 5 n/a n/a n/aUkraine 43 9 8 35 n/aUzbekistan n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aBulgaria 26 4 n/a 65 (drivers +passengers)Romania 11 7 8 52 23RussianFederation

36 n/a 2 34 28

Turkey 19 2 8 24 31Austria 16 5 17 45 14Netherlands 12 24 18 32 14Norway 10 3 17 47 20Sweden 12 6 16 47 18Source: WHO (2009)

2.6 Fatalities involving Alcohol. Table 2.3 shows the percentage of traffic fatalities in TRACECA States

when alcohol was identified as a major causal factor, which clearly indicates this is a significant road safetyissue in Georgia (at least), even though there is a drink-driving law, a relatively low BAC limit (0.02 g/dl), andenforcement which was rated as effective (WHO 2009). Unconfirmed information from other documentssuggests that actual crashes resulting from excess alcohol may be higher than official figures, particularly forcountries of the former Soviet Union.

Table 2.3: Percentage of Traffic Fatalities in TRACECA and EU States involving Alcohol, 2007Country % of Road Traffic FatalitiesArmenia 6Azerbaijan 3Georgia 37Kazakhstan 3Kyrgyzstan n/a

Moldova 17Tajikistan 5Turkmenistan 7Ukraine n/aUzbekistan n/aBulgaria 5Romania 2Russian Federation 10Turkey 2Austria 8Netherlands 25Norway 20-30

Sweden 20Source: WHO (2009)


8/17


2.6 Road Safety Issues. A series of research studies were undertaken in selected European and EastAsian countries in 2006, with funding support provided by the Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (OECD) and European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT). The studies were anintegral part of the activities of the Working Group on Achieving Ambitious Road Safety Targets. CountryReports on the Road Safety Performance of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine were completed in 2006 and theroad safety problems identified in those Reports are summarised in Table 2.4. Several of the problems are

reflected in the crash data analyses shown in Tables 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3.

Table 2.4: Road Safety Problems Identified in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, 2006Country Identified Road Safety ProblemsGeorgia General (poor) condition of roads

Speed limits (presumably, their abuse and/or inappropriateness for road conditions(?))(Low) use of seatbeltsUse of mobile phones while drivingUse of alcohol or drugs while drivingNeed for the upgrading of the skills or drivers and other road users

Moldova (Road safety) legislation should be made to comply with EU requirementsEnforcement system should be improvedReorganization required of traffic control systemData collection and database for traffic accidents should conform with UN requirementsTraining and education is required for all road usersDevelopment of a road safety strategy is required to comply with the EU objective ofreducing traffic fatalities by 50% in the period 2001-2010

Ukraine General driver abuse of traffic rules and regulationsDrink drivingPoor condition of the road networkNeed for driver educationPoor safety record of busesPoor general roadworthiness condition of an aging motor vehicle fleetLow level of safety offered by motor vehicle design and condition

Sources: Road Safety Performance Reports for Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, OECD/ECMT, 2006

2.7 Socioeconomic Cost of Road Crashes. Traffic accidents represent significant economic costs to anycountry. In 2000, TRL estimated about 1% of GDP in low income countries, 1.5% in middle income countries(e.g. TRACECA Member States), and 2% in high income countries. (One estimate for Russia, (ECMT 2006),suggested the figure of 3% of GDP for that country). Table 2.5 presents, for comparison purposes, one view ofthe estimated total economic costs of traffic fatalities and injuries in TRACECA Member States, in 2008 prices,based on an assumed 1.5% of GDP for the cost of road crashes.

Table 2.5: Socioeconomic Cost Estimates of Road Crashes in TRACECA States (2008 prices)Country GDP ($USb) GDP per capita

($US)Number ofFatalities

Fatalities perMillion

Population

EstimatedEconomic Costs

($USb)Armenia 19 5,437 259 87 0.3

Azerbaijan 78 8,958 8,958 125 1.2Georgia 22 5,001 637 138 0.3Kazakhstan 180 11,563 3,136 204 2.7Kyrgyzstan 12 2,174 892 164 0.2Moldova 11 3,154 391 90 0.2Tajikistan 13 1,984 483 66 0.2Turkmenistan 30 5,765 533 109 0.5Ukraine 350 7,634 6,966 152 5.3Uzbekistan 71 2,606 2,075 75 1.1Bulgaria 94 12,372 1,006 140 1.4Romania 273 12,698 2,794 126 4.1Russian

Federation

2,285 16,161 34,506 246 34.3

Turkey 937 13,447 4,496 59 14.1


9/17


Notes: IMF World Economic Outlook Database, October 2008 Fatalities data: latest available from WHO, UNECE, EuroStat databases and the World Bank. Statistics used are theaverage number of fatalities during 2003-05

Economic costs estimated at 1.5% of country GDP at 2008 prices.Source: Death on Wheels, World Bank 2009

3. Inst itutional Elements of Road Safety, TRACECA States

3.1 Institutional Framework. Table 3.1 summarizes the institutional elements of road safety in TRACECAMember States; i.e. identification of the responsible lead agency, if the Agency is funded from the nationalbudget, existence of a road safety strategy, measurable targets (for road safety activities), and if the roadsafety programme is funded to achieve identified targets.

Table 3.1: Institutional Framework for Road Safety, TRACECA States, 2009Country Lead Agency Funded in

National BudgetNational RoadSafety Strategy

MeasurableRS Targets

Funded

Armenia National Road SafetyCouncil

Yes Yes Yes n/a

Azerbaijan State Road Police Yes Yes Yes YesGeorgia Transport Commission - Yes Yes YesKazakhstan Road Police Department Yes Yes No YesKyrgyzstan Kyrgyzstan Commission of

Traffic Accident PreventionNo Multiple n/a n/a

Moldova National Traffic SafetyBoard

No Yes Yes Yes

Tajikistan Department of the StateAutomobile Inspection

(ministry of Internal Affairs)

Yes Multiple n/a n/a

Turkmenistan None n/a Multiple n/a n/aUkraine Ministry of Public Health Yes Multiple n/a n/aUzbekistan The State Motor Vehicle

Inspectorate, Ministry ofInternal Affairs

Yes Yes Yes n/a

Bulgaria State-Public ConsultativeCommission on the

Problems of Road Safety

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Romania Interministerial Council forRoad Safety

Yes Yes n/a n/a

RussianFederation

Commission of theGovernment of the RussianFederation for Road Safety

No Yes Yes Yes

Turkey Board of Road Traffic Safety Yes Multiple n/a n/aAustria Austria Road Safety Council Yes Yes Yes NoNetherlands Ministry of Transport, Public

Works and WaterManagement, Directorate-

General PassengerTransport, Road Safety

Division

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Norway Ministry of Transport andCommunications

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Sweden Swedish RoadAdministration

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Note: Strategy approved in August 2009 identifies the National Road Safety Council as the lead agency. The decree on itsestablishment is under consideration by Government.Source: WHO (2009)


10/17


3.2 Road Safety Legislation, Compliance Rates and Enforcement. The 2009 WHO Report on the GlobalStatus of Road Safety indicated that all TRACECA States had road safety legislation pertaining to drink driving,and the requirements for motor vehicle drivers and passengers to use seat belts and for motorcycle riders touse crash helmets. Table 3.2 provides details of available information on rates of compliance, BAC legal limits,and an assessment of the effectiveness of current enforcement levels (based on in-country observers reportsas recorded by the WHO in 2009).

Table 3.2: Road Safety Requirements, Compliance Rates and Enforcement, TRACECA States, 2009

CountrySeatbelt s Crash-helmets Drink Driving

Use EnforcementRating

Use EnforcementRating

BACLimit(g/dl)

RandomChecks

EnforcementRating

Armenia n/a 3 n/a 5 0.08 Yes 5Azerbaijan n/a 9 n/a 9 0.00 Yes 9Georgia 2% front

urban, 41%highways

8 n/a 6 0.02 No 9

Kazakhstan n/a 7 n/a 5 None Yes 10Kyrgyzstan n/a 5 n/a 7 None Yes 4

Moldova n/a Noconsensus

n/a 1 0.05 Yes 2

Tajikistan n/a 3 n/a 6 0.03 Yes 9Turkmenistan n/a 7 n/a 8 0.05 Yes 10Ukraine n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.00 Yes n/aUzbekistan n/a 10 n/a 9 None Yes 9Bulgaria n/a 8 n/a 7 0.05 Yes 7Romania 80% front,

20% rear5 90% drivers,

65%passengers

6 0.00 Yes 8

RussianFederation

33% 7 Noconsensus

6 0.03 Yes 6

Turkey 70% 8 12% 5 0.05 n/a 9Austria 89% front,49% rear

7 95% 9 0.05 gen0.01

novice

Yes 9

Netherlands 94% front,73% rear

Noconsensus

92% drivers,72%

passengers

Noconsensus

0.05 gen0.02

novice

Yes Noconsensus

Norway 93% front,85% rear

6 100%drivers &

passengers

9 0.02 Yes 4

Sweden 96% front,90% rear

3 95% 1 0.02 Yes 6

Note:

Enforcement Ratings represents a consensus based on professional opinion of in-country respondents on a scale of 0to 10, where a 0 score is not effective and a 10 score is highly effective

Source: WHO (2009)

3.3 Accident Prevention Measures. The 2009 WHO Report on the Global Status of Road Safetyindicated that all TRACECA States currently require safety audits for roadworks; i.e.

Formal audits required for major new road construction projects; and Regular audits of existing road infrastructure, (only Ukraine indicated that regular audits are not

conducted).

The definition of a road safety audit (RSA) is a formal, systematic examination of an existing or future roador traffic project by an independent team of trained road safety specialists. The RSA is required to address

the safe operation of a roadway to ensure a high level of safety for all road users. RSAs are an integral partof the recent EC Directive on Road Infrastructure Safety Management (Nov 2008), which requires the


11/17


introduction of independent systematic safety check of road infrastructure projects, covering each stage(planning to completion) to identify unsafe features.

Although the WHO 2009 Report indicates all TRACECA countries currently require RSAs for new roadconstruction projects and also conduct regular audits of existing road infrastructure, this may represent anover-simplification of what may be perceived as a road safety audit within the Member States. For

instance, the new World Bank-funded road safety projects in Georgia and Azerbaijan both include specifictechnical assistance to introduce guidelines on RSAs, while the WB Road Rehabilitation Project inKyrgyzstan also makes reference to RSAs being introduced in the future as part of a new road safetyprogram. It would appear that the LTSS Project could play a role in developing capacity within theTRACECA States to create awareness of the role of RSAs (to prevent road crashes), and as part of the ECDirective on Road Infrastructure Safety Management.

4. Recent/Current Road Safety Projects, TRACECA States

4.1 The results of the initial programme of data collection within the TRACECA Region is provided inthis part of the Report, as conducted largely by each of the (3) LTSS Regional Coordinators in each of theirrespective areas and TRACECA countries so as to obtain specific data and information. The aim is tocollect the following:

Information on recent, current, and planned road safety projects in each of the TRACECA MemberStates (i.e. being funded by EC agencies, World Bank, Asian Development Bank (ADB), EasternBank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), other IFIs, bilateral agencies), with details oftheir scope, objectives, work programme/implementation schedule, results/outcomes (if completed),reports (if available), in-country contacts (for follow-up).

Data for each of the TRACECA Member States to update the summary information from the WHOGlobal Status Report on Road Safety, as follows:

- confirmation of lead agency for road safety and key local contacts;- copy of the road safety law, if in existence;- copy of the current road safety strategy and action plan, if in existence;- for each of the last 5 years (i.e. 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008), the following data

4:

- total number of registered motor vehicles (by type if available);- total population;- total traffic accidents;- total fatalities;- total injuries;- fatalities by road user category (e.g.% pedestrians, car passengers, etc);- injuries by road user category;- main causes of fatalities (e.g. %drink-driving, speeding, etc); and- main causes of injuries.

Information for each of the TRACECA Member States of any locations along the main internationalroad corridors where there are safety issues or concerns, (e.g. as identified as accident blackspots

or unsafe sections of road), and of any issues or concerns with respect to the safety aspects of thetransportation of dangerous goods by road (e.g. lack of adequate legislation, regulations, etc).

4.2 The results to date are summarized in Table 4.1.

5. Conclusions and the Way Forward

The data collected to date provides some indication of the current road safety situation in the TRACECAMember States, but Table 4.1 also shows there are many gaps in information. The results also suggest thatsome key data is not actually being collected by the responsible authorities at present (e.g. seat-wearing/crash helmet-wearing rates, etc). Gaps in road safety information are particularly in evidence forthe Central Asia States, which suggests that further road safety-specific missions will be required in the nearfuture in order to inform local stakeholders about the LTSS Project and to seek their buy-in to its objectives

4In each case, the source of the data should be identified.


12/17


by aligning these with Member States strategies, plans and needs in the area of road safety. Themission(s) should also aim at determining States needs in terms of increasing local awareness of roadsafety issues and ways to address them.

Table 4.1 Data Collected on Road Safety Projects in TRACECA Member States, Oct-Dec 2009Country Crash

Data

Institutional

Data

Reports Projects

Armenia n/a n/a N-S Road CorridorInvestment Program(ADB, 2009).

Road Safety Management Capacity Review(WB, 2006) no report.

Traffic Safety and Management Project(WB, 2007-08) no report.N-S Corridor Investment Program (ADB,2009, starting 2010).

Azerbaijan 2000-08 n/a Traffic Safety Policy andPlan (WB, 2005).Road Safety Program,

TOR (WB, 2009).

TA to RoadTransService Dept, GOA, (WB,2005) (Traffic Safety Policy and Plan).Azerbaijan Road Safety Program (WB,starting 2010).

Georgia 2005-05 Yes Road Safety Law, 2009.Road Safety Strategy,2009.

Road Safety Action Plan,2009.Road Safety in the SouthCaucasus (WB, 2009).Kakheti Regional RoadImprovement Project(WB, 2009).

East-West Highway Improvement (WB,2009, starting 2010).Kakheti Regional Road Improvement Project

(WB, starting 2010).

Kazakhstan n/a n/a SW Roads Project-WEurope-W ChinaInternational TransitCorridor (CAREC) (WB,2009).Road Transport SectorRestructuring Project(WB Completion Rpt,2008)

SW Roads Project-W Europe-W ChinaInternational Transit Corridor (CAREC) (WB,2009).Road Transport Sector Restructuring Project(WB,2008)

Kyrgyzstan n/a n/a National RoadRehabilitation (Osh-Batken-Isfana) (WB,2009)

National Road Rehabilitation (Osh-Batken-Isfana) (WB, starting 2010)

Moldova 2007-08 Yes Road Safety Action Plan,2006-12

n/a

Tajikistan 2005-08 Some n/a n/a

Turkmenistan n/a n/a n/a n/a

Ukraine n/a Some Twinning Project of RoadSafety (2008)

Road Safety Management Capacity Review(2006) no report

Uzbekistan n/a n/a n/a n/aSources: LTSS Regional Coordinators, via local Stakeholders; RS Mission (Sept 2009), WB Website

In eventually developing an appropriate Action Plan for road safety within the context of the LTSS Project, itis also suggested that the extract from the World Banks recent Death on Wheels document is considered(see Table 4.2). This will help to ensure that the activities and outputs from the LTSS Project areharmonized with the evident intentions of the World Bank activities in their several road safety projects in theEurope and Central Asia (ECA) Region. The fact that we have already established a good workingrelationship with the Banks team working on road safety projects in the South Caucasus should furtherfacilitate this aim.

N. WeeksLand Transport Safety Specialist

SAFEGE30 December 2009


13/17


Table 4.2 Building Blocks for the Implementation of an Effective Road Safety Program5

Areas of Intervention Investments and Actions

1. Institutional capacity building. Technical assistance and related investments for theestablishment, organization and strengthening ofmanagement and operational capacity of a leadagency for road safety, resourcing it adequately, and

making it publicly accountable.

Training programs for policymakers, executivemanagers, road engineers, health practitioners,traffic police officers, and other officials involved inmanagement and design of road safety programsand implementation of road safety programs.

2. National road safety policies, strategies,plans, and organizational and coordinationarrangements.

Technical assistance for developing/updating thelegislative framework, policies, strategies and planswith targets to halve fatality rates by 2020.

3. Road environment: support of interventions tocreate a safer road environment.

Infrastructure investments to improve safety indemonstration road corridors and beyond, such asguardrails, signaling and marking, and reengineering

of most critical crossroads in selected urban areas.

Technical assistance for undertaking network safetyrating surveys and road safety audits andinspections.

4. Road safety enforcement: equipment andtraining traffic police to deter risky behavior.

Acquisition of radar equipment, speed cameras, andbreath analyzers combined with roadside checks tocontrol and monitor speed, alcohol, and seatbelt use.

5. Public information and educationcampaigns andprograms on road safety.

Technical assistance and funding for thedevelopment of public information, education andcommunication programs to support the enforcementof laws and regulations for speed-control, use ofseatbelts, and deterring drinking and driving.

6. Support for improvements of healthpromotion andprevention programs,emergency medicalservices, andrehabilitation services.

As part of health system reforms and modernizationefforts, technical assistance for strengthening publichealth programs, national and regional road safetystrategies and organizational arrangements for firstaid emergency responses; funding for procurementof ambulances, medical equipment and other inputs;training of medical personnel on basic and advancedlife support systems; communication systemsinvestments, including centralized dispatchers andglobal positioning systems (GPSs); and technicalassistance and investments for developing/strengthening of trauma centers, safe bloodtransfusion services, and rehabilitation programs.

7. Monitoring and evaluation. Investments for development of computerizedinformation systems to support data collection,assessment and sharing of information for decision-making and program management across sectors.

Source: Death on Wheels, 2009

5Extracted from Death on Wheels Europe and Central Asia Region, Global Road Safety Facility, World Bank, Nov 2009


14/17


ANNEX

Conference Declaration

from the

First Global Ministerial Conference on Road Safety: Time for Act ion

Moscow, 19-20th

November 2009

(extracted from Confronting Death on Wheels in Europe and Central AsiaEurope and Central Asia Region

Global Road Safety FacilityWorld Bank

Nov 2009)


15/17


We, the Ministers and heads of delegations as

well as representatives of international, regional

and sub-regional governmental and

nongovernmental organizations and private

bodies gathered in Moscow, Russian Federation,from 1920 November 2009 for the First Global

Ministerial Conference on Road Safety,

Acknowledging the leadership of the Government

of the Russian Federation in preparing and

hosting this First Global Ministerial Conference

on Road Safety and the leadership of the

Government of the Sultanate of Oman in leading

the process for adoption of related United Nations

General Assembly resolutions,

Aware that as described in the 2004 World Health

Organization/World BankWorld report on road

traffic injury prevention and subsequent

publications, road traffic injuries are a major

public health problem and leading cause of death

and injury around the world and that road crashes

kill more than 1.2 million people and injure

or disable as many as 50 million a year, placing

road traffic crashes as the leading cause of death

for children and young people aged 529 years,

Concernedthat more than 90% of road trafficdeaths occur in low-income and middle-income

countries and that in these countries the most

vulnerable are pedestrians, cyclists, users of

motorised two- and three-wheelers and passengers

on unsafe public transport,

Conscious that in addition to the enormous

suffering caused by road traffic deaths and

injuries to victims and their families, the annual

cost of road traffic injuries in low-income and

middle-income countries runs to over

USD 65 billion exceeding the total amountreceived in development assistance and

representing 11.5% of gross national product,

thus affecting the sustainable development of

countries,

Convincedthat without appropriate action the

problem will only worsen in the future when,

according to projections, by the year 2020 road

traffic deaths will become one of the leading

causes of death particularly for low-income and

middle-income countries,

Underlining that the reasons for road traffic

deaths and injuries and their consequences are

known and can be prevented and that these

reasons include inappropriate and excessive

speeding; drinking and driving; failure to

appropriately use seat-belts, child restraints,

helmets and other safety equipment; the use of

vehicles that are old, poorly maintained or lacking

safety features; poorly designed or insufficiently

maintained road infrastructure, in particular

infrastructure which fails to protect pedestrians;

poor or unsafe public transportation systems; lack

of or insufficient enforcement of traffic

legislation; lack of political awareness and lack of

adequate trauma care and rehabilitation,

Recognizing that a large proportion of road traffic

deaths and injuries occur in the context of

professional activities, and that a contribution can

be made to road safety by implementing fleet

safety measures,

Aware that over the last thirty years many high-

income countries have achieved substantial

reductions in road traffic deaths and injuries

through sustained commitment to well-targeted,

evidence-based injury prevention programmes,

and that with further effort, fatality free roadtransport networks are increasingly feasible, and

that high- income countries should, therefore,

continue to establish and achieve ambitious road

casualty reduction targets, and support global

exchange of good practices in road injury

prevention,

Recognizing the efforts made by some low- and

middle-income countries to implement best

practices, set ambitious targets and monitor road

traffic fatalities,

Acknowledging the work of the United Nations

system, in particular the long standing work of the

United Nations Regional Commissions and the

leadership of the World Health Organization, to

advocate for greater political commitment to road

safety, increase road safety activities, promote

best practices, and coordinate road safety issues

within the United Nations system,

Also acknowledging the progress of the United

Nations Road Safety Collaboration as a

consultative mechanism whose members are

First Global Ministerial Conference on Road Safety: Time for Action

Moscow, 19-20 November 2009

Moscow Declaration


16/17


committed to road safety and whose activities

include providing governments and civil society

with guidance on good practice to support action

to tackle major road safety risk factors,

Acknowledging the work of other stakeholders,

including intergovernmental agencies; regional

financial institutions, nongovernmental and civil

society organizations, and other private bodies,

Acknowledging the role of the Global Road Safety

Facility established by the World Bank as the first

funding mechanism to support capacity building

and provide technical support for road safety at

global, regional and country levels,

Acknowledging the report of the Commission for

Global Road SafetyMake roads safe: a newpriority for sustainable developmentwhich links

road safety with sustainable development and

calls for increased resources and a new

commitment to road infrastructure safety

assessment,

Acknowledging the findings of the report of the

International Transport Forum and the

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development Towards zero: ambitious road

safety targets and the safe system approach and

its recommendation that all countries regardlessof their level of road safety performance move to

a safe system approach to achieve ambitious

targets,

Acknowledging the findings of the World Health

Organization/UNICEF World report on child

injury prevention which identifies road traffic

injuries as the leading cause of all unintentional

injuries to children and describes the physical and

developmental characteristics which place

children at particular risk,

Recognizing that the solution to the global road

safety crisis can only be implemented through

multi-sectoral collaboration and partnerships

among all concerned in both public and private

sectors, with the involvement of civil society,

Recognizing that road safety is a cross cutting

issue which can contribute significantly to the

achievement of the Millennium Development

Goals and that capacity building in road traffic

injury prevention should be fully integrated into

national development strategies for transport,

environment and health, and supported by

multilateral and bilateral institutions through a

better aligned, effective, and harmonized aid

effort,

Conscious that global results are the effect of

national and local measures and that effective

actions to improve global road safety require

strong political will, commitment and resources at

all levels: national and sub-national, regional and

global,

Welcoming the World Health Organizations

Global status report on road safety the first

country by country assessment at global level

which identifies gaps and sets a baseline to

measure future progress,

Also welcoming the results of the projects

implemented by the United Nations regional

commissions to assist low-income and middle-

income countries in setting their own road traffic

casualty reduction targets, as well as regional

targets,

Determinedto build on existing successes and

learn from past experiences,

Hereby resolve to:

1. Encourage the implementation of the

recommendations of the World report on road

traffic injury prevention,

2. Reinforce governmental leadership and

guidance in road safety, including by designating

or strengthening lead agencies and related

coordination mechanisms at national or sub-

national level;

3. Set ambitious yet feasible national road traffic

casualty reduction targets that are clearly linked toplanned investments and policy initiatives and

mobilize the necessary resources to enable

effective and sustainable implementation to

achieve targets in the framework of a safe systems

approach;

4. Make particular efforts to develop and

implement policies and infrastructure solutions to

protect all road users in particular those who are

most vulnerable such as pedestrians, cyclists,

motorcyclists and users of unsafe public transport,


17/17


as well as children, the elderly and people living

with disabilities;

5. Begin to implement safer and more sustainable

transportation, including through land-use

planning initiatives and by encouraging

alternative forms of transportation;

6. Promote harmonization of road safety and

vehicle safety regulations and good practices

through the implementation of relevant United

Nations resolutions and instruments and the series

of manuals issued by the United Nations Road

Safety Collaboration;

7. Strengthen or maintain enforcement and

awareness of existing legislation and where

needed improve legislation and vehicle and driverregistration systems using appropriate

international standards;

8. Encourage organizations to contribute actively

to improving work-related road safety through

adopting the use of best practices in fleet

management;

9. Encourage collaborative action by fostering

cooperation between relevant entities of public

administrations, organizations of the United

Nations system, private and public sectors, andwith civil society;

10. Improve national data collection and

comparability at the international level, including

by adopting the standard definition of a road

death as any person killed immediately or dying

within 30 days as a result of a road traffic crash

and standard definitions of injury; and facilitating

international cooperation to develop reliable and

harmonized data systems;

11. Strengthen the provision of prehospital and

hospital trauma care, rehabilitation services and

social reintegration through the implementation of

appropriate legislation, development of human

capacity and improvement of access to health care

so as to ensure the timely and effective delivery to

those in need;

Invite the United Nations General Assembly to

declare the decade 20112020 as the Decade of

Action for Road Safety with a goal to stabilize

and then reduce the forecast level of global road

deaths by 2020;

Decide to evaluate progress five years following

the First Global Ministerial Conference on Road

Safety;

Invite the international donor community to

provide additional funding in support of global,

regional and country road safety, especially in

low- and middle-income countries; and

Invite the UN General Assembly to assent to the

contents of this declaration.

Moscow, Russian Federation

20 November 2009

project ltss-road safety rpt dec 09 v2

Documents