UN Road Safety Collaboration Meeting Road Safety Management Project Group

Meeting Minutes

9 April, 2014, New York

Chairs: Marc Shotten, GRSF, World Bank, and Lori Mooren, TARS, UNSW (Rapporteur)

Attendance:

Name Organisation Marc Shotten World Bank Lori Mooren University of NSW Peter Hartzell ISO/SIS

Jack Hanley NETS Matts-Ake Belin Swedish Road Admin Roger Weld Trevor Hall RoadSafe Erin Parker CDC Dave Ederer CDC Jamal El Zarif, Abu Dhabi Ndeye Awa Sarr Laser International Sophie Corret for Robert Trottein Laser Europe Tiyani Rikhotsot Dept of Transport, South Africa

Introduction

The main points in the discussion from the previous meeting was overviewed by the Chair prior to discussing the ways to push the Case Study project forward.

Work Progress and Key Points

1) Examples of ways that jurisdictions develop road safety management structures were discussed. The efforts of multi-lateral organisations like the World Bank to encourage the establishment of institutional strength are limited to putting in a road safety project team and hoping that before the team leaves, the government will have built its own team or agency strength. Building an institutional base for road safety is not a priority in favour of doing some intervention (pet project). WB can exert some influence i.e. to require a road safety project team to be established with known experts but then to sustain this kind of structure is difficult when the project is finished.

2) While funding and accountability are fundamental in road safety management, this is a complex problem when there is no lead agency.

3) The examples of Abu Dhabi, Argentina, Senegal, Sweden and New York City were reviewed, illustrating the differing paths taken to strengthening road safety management. While Arif Mehmood (Department of Transport) sent his apologies another representative from Abu Dhabi advised that road safety grew out of an aspiration for Abu Dhabi to become the best city in the world.

Argentina and the World Bank worked together to establish a top-down commitment to road safety with government agencies and NGOs are working collaboratively. The Senegal Government is supportive of NGOs, especially Laser International leading road safety initiatives. Finally, the historical development of road safety in Sweden illustrates how the movement from a centralised road safety structure with an ambitious vision for road safety evolves into a country that might embrace safety culture and share road safety responsibility rather than it being owned by a single agency. Sweden is changing its paradigm moving from central road safety power to safety culture where road safety is everyone’s responsibility - three stages: 1) not much happens, 2) do campaigns, 3) systematic approach to Vision Zero – more proactive. This mainstreaming approach is being used in other jurisdictions, like Australia where road safety policy and culture are mature. American cities face implementation challenges to apply the national Towards Zero Deaths policy at the municipal level. For example, tackling the pivotal risk of speeding by reducing speed limits is sometimes met with community resistance.

4) The roles and benefits of NGOs and the private/corporate sector in leading the management of road safety are such that these sectors should be encouraged to play a part – especially where there may be a need to supplement government leadership. The use of ISO 39001 standard for road safety management can be used to guide good practices or conduct gap analyses. Examples of e.g. structure, questions, grading of replies and outcome from gap analyses will be provided from various organizations’ perspective, e.g. a multi-national organization, an insurance company (unnamed), as well as from a national road safety agency (Swedish Transport Administration) perspective.

5) The documentation of good practice case studies can assist to show a variety of models that may be adapted in differing environments.

6) After reviewing a draft template, based on the World Bank Capacity Review guide, trialing the template and seeking comment from different Regions, other options for case study documentation were also considered. These included: taking one pivotal road safety challenge, i.e. speed management, and using it to illustrate how institutional structures support this effort, looking at the management of road safety from a historical perspective, and using the ISO 39001 to conduct a gap analysis, it was decided that tweaking and using the existing template is the best way forward.

7) It is also important to identify how research and data analysis can focus road safety management to best outcomes.

Decisions and next steps

It was decided to start documenting a few case studies. This will involve Lori and Marc providing guidance on how the case studies should be structured. The case study jurisdictions and action volunteers are as follow:

• Senegal – especially demonstrating NGO-led road safety (Awa Sarr to draft)

• Argentina – process of generating inclusion from the top (Marc Shotten to draft)

• Cambodia – NGO/Government collaboration approach (Lori Mooren & Alan Ross to draft)

• Sweden – top down government - lead agency to safety culture (Matts-Ake Belin & Peter Hartzell to draft)

• United Kingdom – data-driven road safety & building partnerships (Trevor Hall to draft)

• Abu Dhabi – target: best city in the world (Jamal El Zarif & Arif Mehmood to draft)

• Employers – private and public sectors (Jack Hanley & Peter Hartzell to draft)

The plan is to complete the draft case studies in the next six months for discussion at the next UNRSC meeting. The World Bank will be the publisher of the case study document. Consideration will be given to making this document available for the next global Ministerial Conference on Road Safety.

1

United Nations Road Safety Collaboration (UNRSC)

‘Safer Roads & Mobility’ Project Group New York, April 8-9, 2014

Minutes of Meeting

The meeting was attended by:

Susanna Zammataro Mike Dreznes Hilda Gomez Majed Abed Alkathiri Ben Welle John Mumford Selma Sollero Eugenia Rodrigues Ben Welle Suzy Charman Michael Tziotis Geert van Waeg

Apologies had been received from Focus Area Chairpersons Claudia Adriazola-Steil of

EMBARQ, who was represented by Ben Welle and Steve Lawson of iRAP, who was

represented by John Mumford.

A “pre-meeting “session for the Co-Chairpersons was held on Tuesday morning April 8 prior to

the start of the General Meeting. During this meeting, Nino Paichadze of John Hopkins

University discussed the Decade of Action Indicators with the group. In addition, the current

status of all focus areas was discussed and a general consensus was reached regarding the

plans for the Wednesday morning meeting.

Agenda Point 1 & 2: Welcome and Introduction; Approval of the minutes of Abu Dhabi

meeting

Co-chairpersons Susanna Zammataro and Michael Dreznes started the meeting at 9:09 AM by

welcoming the attendees to the meeting. The attendees introduced themselves. Susanna

Zammataro acted as rapporteur.

The minutes of the previous meeting held in Abu Dhabi in November had been circulated and

they were presented again at the meeting. Suzy Charman motioned to accept the minutes and

John Mumford seconded the motion, the minutes were then unanimously approved.

Susanna Zammataro explained that the finished document from Pillar II has to be submitted no

later than November, 2015 This means the group only has three more meetings to prepare the

document.

2

The group reinforced a few basic points regarding the outcome of the group’s work:

• The document will be a concise WEB BASED document that is practical and pragmatic

and can be easily updated. However, some basic fact-sheets will be available in a

printed form. It is unclear what website will be used to host this document (the group

had discussed in previous meetings the possibility to use the global Transport

knowledge Partnership (gTKP) website (www.gtkp.com) since the platform already

exists and that would avoid replicating work) and it is also unclear how the configuration

and the maintenance of the web based document will be funded.

• The electronic document will provide links to existing documents and manuals rather

than be another manual.

• The document will be directed – among others – at road authorities, road safety

practitioners whether form the public or private sector who have road safety issues, but

limited, if any knowledge of the Safe System Approach.

• The document will give clear direction to help them locate the expertise and support

documents required to utilize the Safe System Approach to make their roads safer and

to build local road safety engineering capacity.

• The document will consist of an opening statement that will show the flow from one of

Focus Areas to the next. The opening statement will also introduce the Safe System

Approach and will be followed by:

� Focus Area 1: Successful Integration of Road Safety into Existing

Systems and Policies

� Focus Area 2: Road safety Infrastructure Management Tools

� Focus Area 3:‘How To’ road safety solutions

� Focus Area 4: A Model Framework for Road Safety Engineering Capacity

Building

These “Focus Areas” will be referred to as “Chapters” or “Sections in the

document.

• The Opening Statement will explain the need for a safety focus at all the stages in the

life-cycle of road infrastructure and for all road users.

• The Opening Statement will explain that the goal of Pillar II is to ensure that safety gets

at least the same emphasis and attention that the environment gets on any road project.

• Document will be designed to provide safer infrastructure for ALL ROAD USERS

• The document will include in its recommendations a call for the mandated use of Road

Safety Audits, Road Safety Impact Assessments, Road Safety Inspections, and Network

Safety Ranking as outlined in EU Directive 2008/96/EC on Road Infrastructure Safety

Management as well as Risk Assessment as a means to introduce and implement the

Safe System Approach.

• Road Authorities will be encouraged to implement an ISO 39001 "Road Traffic Safety

Management" system that utilizes data to make decisions.

3

Agenda point 3: Monitoring and Evaluation of Decade of Action – Pillar 2 Indicators. The group had been requested by Dr Hyder who leads the PG “Monitoring and Evaluation of the

Decade of Action” to review/complete/amend the list of indicators for Pillar II provided by his

group.

Following discussion held during the pre-meeting session, the group decided to focus on some

very key aspects and to re-write the indicators accordingly. Suzy Charman, Michael Tziotis and

Susanna Zammataro volunteered to redraft the indicators and come back to the group with a

proposal. The following is the new list of indicators proposed:

• Countries with a national road safety strategy with a road and traffic infrastructure safety component

• Countries with a road infrastructure safety action plan

• Countries with a dedicated budget to implement the action plan

• Countries with a road safety team/unit/organisation/department responsible for the delivery and monitoring of the action plan

• Countries with a systematic programme to use crash data to identify and treat high crash locations, sections and areas

• Countries that undertake formal (independent and detailed) road safety audits on all new roads and schemes

• Countries with periodic network-wide surveys (e.g. iRAP or similar) to identify high risk locations and road sections

• Countries that undertake detailed review of existing roads to identify hazards that may increase crash risk or severity (note: this may be called road safety inspection, assessment or audit).

• Countries or cities that are implementing sustainable transport and/or sustainable development solutions (note this last indicator was proposed by Claudia Adriazola-Steil after first review of these minutes).

The group underlined that these are to be considered as an “aspirational target” and that it was

out of the mandate and means of this group to collect these data.

Agenda point 4: Opening Statement

A draft of the Opening Statement – as presented - was agreed in principle by the group subject

to future review of wording once the other Chapters of the document will completed. This

statement is attached as Exhibit 1.

Agenda point 5: FOCUS AREA I - Successful Integration of Road Safety into Existing

Systems and Policies”

Ben Welle represented Chairperson Claudia Adriazola-Delgado, who will be on maternity leave

until May 1, 2014.

4

Focus Area 1 will:

• Introduce and explain the need for the Safe System Approach

o Explain the purpose and definition of the Safe System Approach

o Provide examples of road authorities that are using the Safe System Approach

o Provide economic justifications for road safety implementation (i.e. Cost to

society for a fatality equals 70 times a country’s gross national product per

capita)

• Explain the need for sustainable urban mobility and urban design to provide safety for

ALL road users

• Introduce and motivate the reader to use Road Safety Audits, Road Safety Impact

Assessments, Road Safety Inspections, Network Safety Ranking, and Risk

Assessments as methods to introduce the Safe System Approach

o Encourage financial institutions to require Road Safety Audits, Road Safety

Impact Assessments, Road Safety Inspections, Network Safety Ranking, and

Risk Assessments as a mandate to any loan or grant.

• Provide a success story that used this model. The Group agreed that Abu Dhabi

Municipality would be an excellent example. Abu Dhabi Municipality made the decision

to utilize the Safe System Approach and imported expertise to conduct Risk

Assessments and then Road Safety Audits to improve safety for ALL USERS on the Abu

Dhabi Municipality roads. Abu Dhabi Municipality’s ultimate goal is to have the local

knowledge capacity to conduct the necessary assessments and audits in the future.

Majed Abed Alkathiri agreed to develop a draft that describes the steps Abu Dhabi

Municipality has taken to improve the safety on its roads by May 10, 2014. This will

include:

o Abu Dhabi Municipality’s decision making process to make road safety an

emphasis

o The method used to locate ARR to use to assist with a Risk Assessment

Program

o The process used to adopt the Safe System Approach

o The introduction of Road Safety Audits/Road Safety Inspection as standard

operating procedures

o The efforts underway to build local road safety engineering capacity in Abu Dhabi

• Use the Victoria Australia TAC as an example of an innovative funding mechanism

(commitment to provide Victoria A$100,000,000 for each of the next ten years for road

safety improvements). Michael Tziotis agreed to prepare a first draft on this TAC topic

by May 10, 2014

• Other suggestions for case study models included Egypt and Mexico. However, no one

was given the task to pursue these studies.

• The group cautioned also about the importance of providing examples which are

relevant for low and middle income countries.

Ben Welle agreed to work with Claudia Adriazola-Delgado to prepare an initial draft for Focus

Area I by May 31, 2013.

5

Agenda point 6: FOCUS AREA II - Road Safety Infrastructure Management Tools

Focus Area II assumes that – for example - a Road Authority has either been convinced or has

been told to use the Safe System Approach on a project but the pertinent road authority does

not have the expertise in house to implement the Safe System Approach.

Focus Area II’s purpose is to make it simple for a road authority with no in-house expertise to

locate and use the tools needed to improve road safety for ALL USERS.

Suzy Charman presented the current status of Focus Area II. She has made excellent

progress. The PowerPoint presentation prepared by Suzy Charman is attached as Exhibit 2.

Suzy Charman suggested starting by working on the ones which are displayed in bold in her list.

She called for volunteers to help her out. John Mumford agreed to draft the fact sheets on the

star rating for new roads and existing roads. Hilda Gomez raised the issue of urban roads and

did question if iRAP should be mentioned by name since it is a trademarked name. The group

agreed that using the name iRAP was acceptable, but it should not be a major heading.

Suzy Charman will take into account the group’ comments from this meeting and will get an

updated draft out by May 31, 2014. Mike Dreznes, Ben Welle, Michael Tziotis, Hilda Gomez

and Majed Abed Alkathiri agreed to review Suzy Charman’s updated draft and get responses

back to her within thirty days after receipt of the draft.

Agenda point 7: FCOUS AREA III - ‘How To’: Tips for Cost-effective Road Safety

Solutions

Michael Tziotis presented a document that his Focus Area Team had prepared (Exhibit 3).

This is shown as Exhibit 3 in these minutes. The only person who had replied to Michael

Tziotis’ request for comments on his submitted draft was Geert van Waeg. There was some

concern in the group about the potential dangers that may arise when a user of the document

fails to read the text that precedes the ‘solutions’ (i.e. users could immediately refer to the tables

of remedial treatments for solutions, rather than understanding that the selection of remedial

treatment/s follows a process of crash investigation, as described in the forward text). To this

end Michael will review the introduction of each of tables of remedial treatments to state more

clearly that the user of the guidance document needs to carry out a crash investigation that will

lead to the use of an appropriately targeted cost-effective remedial treatment, as provided for in

the tables. Michael Tziotis agreed to take into account the group’s input and to distribute and

updated draft no later than May 31, 2014. Suzy Charman will provide some material to

strengthen the reference list.

Group Members will have thirty days after receipt of this draft to submit other solutions that are

not included in the updated draft and/or make additional comments to be incorporated into

consideration for future drafts of Focus Area III.

Agenda point 8: FOCUS AREA IV - A Model Framework for Road Safety Engineering

Capacity Building

6

The Group recognised that Focus Area IV is a critical area for Pillar II and that “success” will be

when every country is self sufficient and can appropriately address road safety issues with their

own personnel. Focus Area IV assumes that -for example - the pertinent Road Authority has

accepted the use of Road Safety Audits, Road Safety Impact Assessments, Road Safety

Inspections, and Network Safety Ranking, but does not want to continue to import the expertise

to conduct the Audits, Assessments, Inspections and Rankings.

John Mumford presented the work that was prepared by Steve Lawson on Focus Area IV.

Steve had received multiple comments on his work from the group. The group agreed that the

draft for Focus Area IV had some good information and detail. However, it was not properly

arranged. While discussing the group was able to restructure the flow of the work. John

Mumford agreed to review the draft prepared by Steve Lawson on the basis of what discussed

and by using the template developed by Suzy Charman for Focus Area II. John was asked to

distribute an updated draft no later than May 31, 2014. The updated draft is already attached

as Exhibit 4.

Agenda point 9 and 10: Next steps and Conclusions

The meeting did continue passed the subscribed finish time and did extend into lunchtime. The

group agreed to set 31st May as deadline for each Focus Group to review work along the lines

of what discussed during the meeting. There being no other business, Susanna Zammataro and

Mike Dreznes thanked the Members for their active participation and adjourned the meeting at

12:49 PM.

19th UN Road Safety Collaboration Minutes of Safer Road Users Project Group

9 April 2014 New York City

Chair: Gayle Di Pietro

Attendees:

Gayle Di Pietro (GRSP); Floor Lieshout (YOURS); Kate Carr (Safe Kids); David Sleet (CDC); Nic

Ward (MSU); Greg Clark (MAPFRE Foundation); Bennie Van Rooyen (GRSP); Edwin Bastiaensen

(IMMA); Michael Chippendale (GRSP); Mike Griffith (FHWA); Christophe Lobry-Boulanger

(IFRC); Cathy Silberman (ASIRT); Ed Martinez (UPS Foundation); Shane O’Connor (FedEx);

Stephanie Pratt (CDC/NIOSH); Mark Isaac (Safe Kids); FIA Foundation.

Report:

1. Two and Three Wheeler Manuals

• Edwin Bastian provided an update on the IMMA’s manual “The Shared Road to Road

Safety: A Global Approach for Safer Motorcycling”. The manual largely pushes for a

comprehensive approach to safety policy and practice, based on a shared responsibility

approach and recognition that powered two-wheelers have a place in society and need

to be integrated as part of broader transport planning. The manual is to be launched at

the International Transport Forum in Leipzig, May 2014.

• Dr Margie Peden spoke about the planned new Good Practice Manual that will be

developed and completed in time for the mid-term review meeting. In brief, the Manual

will

• Target policy makers, and the broader road safety community

• Provide a global overview on the profile, risk factors and best practice

interventions on powered two-wheeler safety

• Focus on low-income and middle-income countries

• Include emerging issues such as E-bikes and 3-wheelers

• Build on ongoing work by UNRSC members.

2. PIARC Road Safety Manual (Mike Griffith)

A report on the development of the PIARC manual was provided, along with its contents

and purpose.

3. Youth and Road Safety (Floor Lieshout)

Floor Lieshout described a resource that is being developed around the involvement of

young people in road safety, particularly their role in advocacy and public education.

Given there is little evidence of success in reducing death and serious injury on the

roads from working with youth, it was seen as important to develop a resource that

looks at the best way to engage with young people. Floor provided a draft Table of

Contents for discussion. The resource should be ready by the end of 2015.

4. Advocacy around road safety

• GRSP – NGOs and National Societies: Gayle Di Pietro spoke of the role of NGOs

and National Societies in road policing checkpoints in several countries. They

serve as calming influences on the travelling public, observatories of police

practices, and as data collectors. This is a great initiative and one that can be

replicated to make road policing more efficient and acceptable.

• NGO Alliance meeting: no updates

5. Road Safety Week with a focus on Child Road Safety

• Participants were asked to give some thought to the next Road Safety Week and

to begin preparing resources and thinking. A brief discussion about the week

took place.

Phase 1: May-June 2014

Planning Phase 2: July-Dec 2014

Compiling evidence Phase 3: Jan-March 2015

Preparing draft document Phase 4: April- December 2015

Finalizing and publishing

Set up working groupsPrepare first complete draft

modules 1-5Prepare second draft

Develop Table of Content Edit

Prepare draft modules 1 and 2Conduct internal and external

reviewLayout

Consultation with advisors

and working groups Update to UNRSC Final report

Begin to prepare dissemination Finalize dissemination strategy

strategy Release & dissemination

Synthesise evidence and prepare

summaries for parts of modules 1

and 2 & case illustrations

6. Use of social Media.

• A small sub-group had worked in between UNRSC meetings to look for

opportunities to share consistent messaging about road safety – through

Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. To date no progress report has been shared

from this group whose membership has been fluid.

7. Addressing global road policing issues and challenges.

Following on from the earlier discussion on Improving enforcement of global road safety

interventions (GRSP and World Bank) participants were asked to think outside the box

on how to address some of the very real challenges to strategic enforcement of road

safety policy in low- and middle-income countries. Whilst discussion centred on the

familiarity of the issues and examples, no concrete suggestions were made.

Kate Carr (SafeKids) offered that she would share how their organisation is working

well with traffic police.

19th UN Road Safety Collaboration Post-crash project group

Wednesday 9 April 2014, New York City, NY

Attendees

Dr Margie Peden, Chair, WHO

Ms Rochelle Sobel, Co-Chair, ASIRT

Professor Adnan Hyder, RTIRN

Mr Steve Apter, World Rescue Organisation

Ms Dia Gainor, National Association of State EMS Officials

Ms Margret Seko, Ministry of Transport, South Africa

Professor Manuel Ramos, FEVR

Mr Martin Bevalot, Handicap International

Ms Eugenia Gonzalez Presto, Fundación Gonzalo Rodríguez

Mr Jonathan Welch, Amend

Mr Jeffrey Witte, Amend

Welcome

Margie welcomed the meeting and the pleasing number of attendees. The group introduced themselves and their organisations.

Agenda

The agenda was agreed and Mr Steve Apter agreed to take notes.

Review of November 2013 minutes

Professor A.A. Hyder gave a verbal report on the last meeting in Abu Dhabi. It was agreed that there is a strong view to keep this group going and a strong focus had emerged around training.

Dr Peden expressed a view to possibly split this group into 2 areas viz. medical trauma care and victim support. Some discussion ensued on this suggestion. It was agreed to leave group as it currently is to promote a holistic approach.

Updates

Mr J. Witte gave the following update on the Global Alliance of NGOs on road safety:

• The Alliance is now well established.

• Over 100+ NGO's from over 90+ countries are members.

• Affiliation for NGOs with the WHO gives legitimacy to the alliance.

• Now well organised.

• FIA-F funding received to support the establishment of some paid staff will greatly assist.

Dr Peden asked how this working group could complement the Alliance. Collaboration in the following areas was suggested:

• Updating a previous survey of NGOs that had been undertaken.

• Road safety week.

• Ministerial meeting.

Short updates on the work on working group members followed.

The following additional issues were discussed:

1. Raising awareness of the post-crash phase

To raise the profile of pillar 5 prior to and to inform the global high-level conference on road safety in Brazil it was agreed to develop a document which sets out what pillar 5 is and how it helps to achieve the objectives of the Decade of Action. The output will be a very short document or policy brief that deconstructs pillar 5 using case studies and examples of activities conducted by a range of partners such as the Global Alliance, NGOs, first responder agencies and victims organisations as well as a range of normative documents.

2. Post-crash care training

Professor A. A. Hyder gave an update on post-crash care training as an outcome of the last meeting. The presentation initiated discussion around pre-hospital care training and who is the target audience?

Discussion ensued around the role of this group in trauma care training. I was agreed that rather than set training standards or design training, this group should become advocators for training standards and share experiences. It was recommended that training be covered generically within the document described in 1 above and that a second document be produced (potentially between January and October 2015) that expands on this in more detail and is wider than just medical responders.

3. Upcoming meeting of GACI

Dr Peden gave a brief update on what the Global Alliance for Care of the Injured was and how their objectives dovetail with some of this project group. She mentioned that the next meeting of GACI is planned for May 2015.

4. Indicators for PG 5

Members were reminded of the current indicators for PG5. There is:

• One core indicator = Number of countries with one national emergency access

number

• One optional indicator = Number of countries where specific trauma care training

is required for emergency care personnel; and

• Three other useful indicators

o Number of countries with vital registration systems.

o Number of countries with emergency-room based injury surveillance

systems.

o Proportion of seriously injured patients transported to hospital by

ambulance.

Challenges regarding indicators for this pillar were discussed. All members are asked to consider measures they use in their own areas and to forward suggestions to Dr Peden.

UN Road Safety Collaboration

Work-related Road Safety Project Group

April 9, 2014

Chair: Awa Sarr, LASER International (Senegal)

Rapporteur: Stephanie PRATT, CDC (USA)

Present: Maria Bekker, Road Traffic Management Corporation (South Africa)

Jack Hanley, Network of Employers for Traffic Safety (USA)

Jens Hügel, International Road Transport Union (Switzerland)

Gabriel Kardos, Johnson & Johnson (Hungary)

Lori Mooren, University of New South Wales (Australia)

Stephanie Pratt, CDC/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

(USA)

Joël Valmain, Délégué Interministérial à la Sécurité routière (France)

Nicholas Ward, Montana State University (USA)

Discussion of web portal with ‘best practices’ for road safety management by employers

This portal has been hosted by RoadSafe, but there are no resources available to improve the

design, organization, or search functions of this portal, or to add new materials.

ACTION: A representative of the WRRSG (Awa?) to contact RoadSafe to notify them

that we will be seeking a new location for these materials.

We will request that the Private Sector Road Safety Collaboration page under the UNRSC be

reworked to be the new portal for the WRRSG. This location will be the new home for the ‘best

practices’ resources.

ACTION: Stephanie will contact Margie Peden to ask that this change be made, and to

identify a contact with whom to coordinate future updates.

Nick Ward offered to explore obtaining assistance from a student at his university who may be

able to provide design and programming assistance to transfer the resources now on the

RoadSafe site to the new location on the UNRSC site, and to enhance the functionality of the

new site.

ACTIONS: Nick to contact Stephanie if assistance is available, and Nick and Stephanie

to contact Awa to arrange a follow-up discussion. Other WRRSG members to contact

Stephanie to express interest in assisting with the project.

WRRSG members will market the updated web site through their networks, and will develop 2

or 3 PowerPoint slides that members can use in their own presentations. Lori offered to

publicize the updated site through the Occupational Safety in Transport (OSIT) conference

scheduled for September

ACTION NEEDED: Volunteer to draft the slides and circulate to the WRRSG.

Using the 2014 UN resolution to advance work-related road safety

The resolution makes some reference to work-related road safety:

• PP18, which acknowledges the role of the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and

the Caribbean in disseminating best practices to stakeholders including the private sector

• PP20, which acknowledges the contribution of IRU in developing and harmonizing

international standards for vocational training of road transport professionals

• PP27, which recognizes the role of public-private partnerships in improving global road

safety

We discussed whether it would be possible to use the resolution to communicate the

importance of WRRS as a group. We did not reach agreement to do this as a project group;

given the mix of public, private, and NGO partners that make up the WRRSG, some members

are not necessarily able to address governments or other stakeholders on this issue. However,

at the least, we might develop general talking points that could be used for advocacy, which

could then be adapted based on our individual constraints.

ACTION NEEDED: Any volunteers to draft talking points or model text that could be

placed on organizations’ web pages?

Gabriel noted that the Global Road Safety Commitment, developed a few years ago by a group

led by Andy Pearce and sponsored by GRSP, could be used to further support the UN

resolution.

ACTION: Stephanie will contact Gayle di Pietro to determine the status of the

Commitment.

Upcoming events

• Lori informed the group of the Occupational Safety in Transport conference, scheduled for

18-19 September 2014 in Gold Coast, Australia (www.ositconference.com).

• Joël informed the group of a conference in Québec on 7-8 October 2014 on the topic of

distracted driving. The conference is jointly organized by France, Belgium, and Québec. It

will include sessions on the role of employer policies in reducing distracted driving,

encompassing all employees who drive for work. Related to this is a 3-year commitment by

employers to institute policies to reduce distracted driving.

• Awa recalled about the Global Road Safety Film Festival that took place in Paris last April,

and Where AIP Foundation won the Gran Price and which briefing she had made at the last

UNRSC meeting, with Jean Todt, FIA President, as the President VIP Guest

• Awa informed that a “Francophone” Road Safety Forum is planned in Dakar, during the last

“Francophonie” summit leaded by its President Abdou Diouf. LASER will send further details

for the dates, agenda and venue.

1

UN Road Safety Collaboration Subgroup : Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) of the Decade of Action (DoA) for Global

Road Safety Wednesday, 9 April 2014

11.30h - 12.30h

Meeting Minutes Chair: Adnan Hyder, Chairman Road Traffic Injuries Research Network and Director Johns Hopkins International Injury Research Unit Co-Chair: Margie Peden, WHO Meeting Aims: The meeting will:

• Finalize a proposed short set of "global" indicators for M&E of the DoA since last meeting;

• Discuss how data from Global Road Safety Status Reports can be used to populate those indicators; and

• Recommend approaches for case studies and special projects for M&E of the DoA. Discussion The M&E Project Group meeting was well attended with 30 participants. After a welcome message from the Chair and introducing the purpose of the M&E Project Group, agenda items and the aim of the meeting were presented. Dr. Hyder briefly described the Global Status Report on Road Safety, its history and importance; questions related to data collection methodology and the reliability of the collected data were discussed by the participants. Before reviewing current list of indicators for each Pillar, the main criteria for selecting indicators was presented and the efforts made to date for populating the indicators was discussed. As there are many indicators for which global level data is missing, some of the indicators were redefined or removed from the list completely. The GSRRS is suggested to be the main tool for populating Pillar indicators. Pillar 1: There were still some indicators, which are missing data, and those indicators were removed from the list. Currently there are 5 indicators all of which are populated using the GSRRS-2. Pillar 2: There are some issues related to the availability of data/data sources for the indicators under this Pillar. Currently there are 5 indicators, which are populated using the GSRRS-2. Pillar 3: This seems to be the most problematic Pillar in terms of availability and reliability of data for the indicators. Though the GSRRS-2 collected data on some of the indicators under the Pillar 3, there were concerns about the reliability of the data; as explained by Dr. Peden, the critical word in the questions about the vehicle standards and regulations was “enacting”, some countries might have standards/policies on the books, but not enacted as such; also, there was confusion about distinguishing between standards for all new cars, cars manufactured in the country, new cars imported or for used cars. Due to some of these factors, the GSRRS-2 did not provide rigorous data on these indicators. Currently only one indicator is populated using data from the GSRRS-2

2

Pillar 4: There are several indicators and almost all of them are well populated. Based on the data collected by the GSRRS-3 questionnaire, it will be possible to add more details under some indicators and add an indicator on child restraint wearing rate. Currently, 14 indicators are populated using data from the GSRRS-2. Pillar 5: This Pillar is relatively weak in terms of availability of the data/data source. As discussed by Dr. Peden, there was an attempt to add an indicator on Good Samaritan Law but the GSRRS-2 showed that governments interpret laws in different ways. The data collection for the GSRRS-3 involves collecting actual pieces of road safety legislation, which then will be reviewed by 2 lawyers to better understand where countries stand in terms of road safety legislation. Outcome indicators: these indicators provide information about actual road traffic crash outcomes. The numbers for most of the countries are estimates, while few report(ed) actual numbers. Next Steps In conclusion, the M&E Project Group has been trying to collect data on initially proposed indicators for almost 2 years, and it is time to move forward in monitoring the progress of the Decade of Action. Therefore, it was decided that:

• Indicators, for which there are no data, will be removed from the list.

• The GSRRS will be used as the main tool for populating these indicators and tracking the progress over time

• Pillar Project Groups are welcome to explore additional indicators with other data sources.

• Pillar 3 will be given some time to review and send in 4-5 new indicators

• An updated list of 40+ indicators will be published on the Decade of Action website for reference by all partners.

• This list will be presented in the next (20th) meeting of UNRSC. Annexes

• Presentation of M&E group to UNRSC plenary

Decade of Action

Project Group on Monitoring and Evaluation

Report back to plenary April 9, 2014

Process for reviewing Pillar indicators

• Global indicators – Not a few countries, or one region only

• Data available – Not propriety or inaccessible

• Reliable/valid data sources – Believable; scientifically collected

• Could be tracked and monitored over time – Not one time, selective

• Agreed upon by UNRSC – Consistent with the global plan of action

Efforts to Obtain Data

• GSRRS-2 reviewed and used • 2010 data

• Questionnaire for the GSRRS-3 reviewed and used • Expected 2013 data

• All pillar group chairs emailed for data • Other UNRSC partners approached

• Publicly available data reviewed • Extensive review of websites

• Pillar indicators reviewed • Updates

Current Status of Indicators

• A total of 36 indicators can be populated today across five Pillars and global outcomes – Using GSRRS-2

• 2 new indicators will be available from the GSRRS-3 • 5 new indicators are being discussed by the UNRSC Pillar

Project Group 3 • Therefore, it is likely that we have total of 43 indicators for

monitoring the rest of the Decade

Pillar 1 – Road Safety Management INDICATORS 2010

Number of countries which have a clearly empowered agency leading road safety

162 (of which 122 are funded)

Number of countries with a national strategy 139 (single or multiple national strategies

Number of countries with time-based road safety targets

112 fatality targets, 62 non-fatal targets

Number of countries that collect annual road traffic crash data consistent with internationally accepted definitions

92 use 30 day, 19 use one year and 17 use unlimited

Number of countries that have dedicated funds to implement their road safety strategy 119 partially or fully funded

Pillar 2 – Safer Roads and Mobility INDICATORS 2010

Number of countries requiring formal safety review/audit for new road infrastructure projects 140

Number of countries requiring formal safety inspection/ratings on existing road infrastructure networks 142

National policies that encourage cycling and walking as alternative to car travel 68

National policies that encourage the use of public transport as an alternative to car travel 107

National policies to protect vulnerable road users 79

Pillar 3 – Safer Vehicles

INDICATORS 2010

Total number of registered vehicles by vehicle type per country 150 countries

Number of countries requiring seatbelts and anchorages (UN Regulations 14&16) ?

Number of countries requiring front seat and side impact standard (UN Regulations 94&95) ?

Number of countries requiring electronic stability control (UN GTR 8) ?

Number of countries requiring pedestrian protection (UN GTR 9) ?

Number of countries requiring latest braking on the motorcycles (Regulations 78 and GTR3) ?

Pillar 4 – Safer Road Users INDICATORS 2010 INDICATORS 2010

No. countries with national level speed limits appropriate to the type of road (urban, rural, highway)

114 have urban limit =<50 km/h, 100 allow local authorities to reduce

national limits where appropriate

No. countries with (national or subnational) data on helmet-wearing rates 69

No. countries with blood alcohol concentration limits (for general populations) less than or equal to 0.05 g/dl

89 No. countries with a comprehensive seat-belt law (legislation requires use of seatbelt among all occupants: front and rear seats)

111

No. countries with blood alcohol concentration limits lower than 0.05g/dl for young/novice and commercial drivers

42 have limits =<0.02 for young-novice drivers (23 countries have

lower limits for this group than for gen population), 50 have limits =<0.02 for commercial drivers

No. countries with (national or subnational) data on seat-belt wearing rates (front, rear) 84

No. countries with (national or subnational) data on the proportion of alcohol-related fatal crashes

73 countries test all fatally injured drivers No. countries with a child restraint law 96

No. countries with (national or subnational) data on alcohol related crashes

95 countries have some data on alcohol related crashes

Number of countries with legislation/regulation on hand-held mobile phone use while driving

142

No. countries with a comprehensive helmet use law (including national and international standard) [GSRRS-3: data by road user type, road type, engine type]

90 Number of countries with a ban on hand-held and hands free mobile phone use by driving 34

Number of countries that have national laws that address all five key risk factors 94

Number of countries with (national or subnational)data on child restraint wearing rates

GSRRS-3 Number of countries with a helmet standard 98

Pillar 5 – Post-crash Response INDICATORS 2010 INDICATORS 2010 INDICATORS 2010

Number of countries with one national emergency access number

111

Number of countries where specific trauma care training is required for emergency care personnel

124 countries training

for doctors,

96 training

for nurses

Number of countries with vital registration systems

160

Number of countries using any injury severity grading system in health facilities

GSRRS-3

Number of countries with emergency-room based injury surveillance systems

77

Proportion of seriously injured patients transported to hospital by ambulance

59

Outcome Indicators INDICATORS 2010 INDICATORS 2010

Number of road traffic deaths, as a core composite indicator for all activities

1.24 million

Proportion of road traffic injuries that result in a permanent disability

1 in 20, ranging from >1% to 25% median 5%

Proportion of road traffic deaths by sex

77% male

Proportion of road traffic deaths by age groups

60% between ages of 15 and 44

Proportion of road traffic deaths by road user

23 pedestrians, 5% cyclists, 27% motorcyclists, 31% car occupants

Estimated proportion of GDP lost as a result of RT crashes

Ranges from 0.8 to 6.6

Next Steps

• Finalizing this current list of indicators – To those available for monitoring the decade

• GSRRS – main tool/source of data – Will be done every 2/3 years

• Publish finalized list of the indicators – On the Decade of Action website

• The UNRSC Pillar Project Groups are welcome to explore additional indicators with other data sources

1

UNRSC PROJECT GROUP

Pillar 3 Safer Vehicles

9 April 2014, The Convene Centre, New York

DRAFT MEETING MINUTES

Participants:

Shungo Akizuki – International Motorcycle Manufacturers Association

Paul Boase – Transport Canada

John Chatterton-Ross – Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme (FIM)

Gabriel Kardos – Johnson & Johnson

Pamela Khumalo (Thandi) – Department of Transport, South Africa

Shakireh Ispahani – Global NCAP

Nino Paichadze – JUU-IIKU

Jose Aurelio Ramalho – Observatório Nacional de Seguranca Viaria (ONSV)

Gabriel Sanchez – Abu Dhabi

David Ward – Global NCAP

The Meeting Minutes of the Pillar 3 Project Group on 6th November 2013 were approved.

David Ward (Working Group Chairman) provided an update of Pillar 3 Activities:

(a) Global NCAP Update

On January 30th Global NCAP launched its Safer Cars in India project.

On May 6th a Global NCAP Forum will be held in Melbourne, Australia. This event will feature the

launch of a fleet Buyers guide and our 2014 awards scheme presented by HRH Prince Michael of

Kent.

On May 19th Latin NCAP will host its Annual Meeting in Montevideo.

On October 28-30 Global NCAP’s 2014 Annual Meeting will be held at CATARC Tianjin, hosted by

China NCAP. The event will also include a Technical Expert Working Group Meeting as well as a

Communications Working Group Meeting. The crash test facility in Tianjin is hugely impressive and

houses nine different laboratories.

Global NCAP has secured a multi-annual grant agreement from the FIA Foundation and additional

support from donors such as the World Bank, IDB, and the Road Safety Fund etc. We have provided

grant and technical support to the pilot projects of Latin NCAP and ASEAN NCAP.

In May Global NCAP will also be publishing a ‘Choose Safety - Five Star’ Fleet Purchase Guide to

assist managers aiming for safer fleets. After extensive conversations with many Fleet Purchasers, it

2

seems that there is still a great deal of confusion about how to buy safer cars. The Guide

recommends that fleet managers choose ‘Five Star’ cars rated by NCAPs where ever possible.

The Guide also proposes that fleet managers ask manufacturers to certify that the chosen vehicle

will pass the most important standards of the UN World Forum for Harmonisation of Vehicle

Regulations (or equivalent FMVSS where applicable). These are:

• Seat belt anchorages - Reg. 14

• Safety belts and restraint systems - Reg. 16

• Occupant protection in frontal collision - Reg. 94

• Occupant protection in lateral collision - Reg. 95

• Electronic stability control - GTR 8*

• Pedestrian protection - GTR 9*

(*by 2020 at the latest)

David Ward also informed the Board of the UN Decade’s 2020 Vision and that, as of 2013, from a

total of 65 million new cars more than 20 million fail to meet UN crash test standards and have no

air bags, no anti-lock brakes, and no electronic stability control. If the Decade succeeds by 2020 all

new cars will meet UN crash test standards with air bags, ABS and ESC fitted as standard.

This needs government action to regulate more effectively and greater effort to stimulate consumer

demand for safer motor vehicles.

(b) Phase 4 Latin NCAP Crash test results released in January 2014

Since 2010 Latin NCAP has tested 40 cars. The results show that the region’s top selling cars are

twenty years behind European or American safety standards. Many of the worse cars would be

illegal in Europe and North America. However, there are signs of progress with more four and five

star cars on the market. This has not been caused by any change in regulatory requirements, but by

consumer information becoming more widely available thanks to Latin NCAP’s work.

In July last year the first ever five star result was awarded to the Seat New Leon. In January some

new results were released by Latin NCAP.

The VW ‘up!’ is now the fifth car to reach this coveted top safety rating, which is amazing progress in

just three years that Latin NCAP’s has been in existence. The up! achieving five stars is especially

significant as it is a small and fairly low cost car.

(c) The Safer Cars for India Project launch in January 2014

India is now the 6th largest producer of vehicles in the world and to be such a large producer without

an NCAP is an issue. In partnership with IRTE, Global NCAP’s Indian Research Project tested five

popular models on the Indian market. Models tested were:

• Ford Figo

3

• Hyundai i10

• Maruti Alto

• Tata Nano

• Volkswagen Polo

Each model was tested to the UN Reg 94 frontal impact standard at 56 kph and also the typical NCAP

test speed of 64 kph. The results had an online audience of 68 million. They were also the main

feature in many Indian TV shows.

David Ward then showed the group videos of the crash tests, the results of which were very poor.

The Ford Figo very narrowly passed the 56kph test because the dummy just missed hitting the

steering wheel. It was quite lucky for Ford but also did show that the body shell integrity wasn’t too

bad. The VW didn’t have a very bad body shell either. The Suzuki Alto, the most popular car of the

five, had a very poor body shell and no airbags. The Hyundai showed a lot of separation between the

roof and door, which signifies a lot of intrusion at the lower levels of the car, around the legs and so

on. The Tata Nano’s results were catastrophic, but it isn’t sold much anyway. There are no seatbelts

in the rears so child seats can’t be fitted. The VW Polo is much better with airbags. It got zero stars

without airbags and 4 stars with, which does show how easy it is to pass the tests if the basic

structure is good. The results were launched on 31st January in New Delhi at a conference jointly

organised by IRTE and Global NCAP, with support from World Bank Global Road Safety Facility, UL

and Denso.

David Ward mentioned that the Ford Figo was manufactured in India and then sold to South Africa.

Pamela Khumalo said that Avis Rental Cars had a fleet of Ford Figos. David Ward said that it was

probably a good idea to insist on one with an airbag if possible.

(d) ASEAN NCAP’s Phase Three testing from October 2013 to March 2014

ASEAN NCAP’s first phase tests focussed on the small and sedan passenger car. The results were

launched in January 2013 and comprised 7 models and 8 ratings. The star ratings varied from 1 to 5

stars. The cars tested were the Ford Fiesta, Honda City, Hyundai i10, Nissan March, Perodua MyVi,

Proton Saga and Toyota Vios. It’s very impressive that though ASEAN NCAP’s Secretariat, MIROS, is a

government organisation, they haven’t shied away from testing local cars and also don’t seem to

have suffered any backlash as a result of that. It shows that the industry realises that it needs to do

better.

Phase Two results were released in August. For this phase eleven cars were crash tested; the Toyota

Prius, Honda Civic, Subaru XV, Suzuki Swift, Mazda 2, Mitsubishi Mirage, Toyota Avanza, Perodua

Alza, Nissan Almera, Daihatsu Xenia and Mitsubishi Pajero Sport.

Most cars achieved a four star rating, and the Toyota Prius, Honda Civic and Subaru XV each

achieved 5 stars. All the cars are tested in MIROS’s own lab in Melaka, Malaysia.

David Ward then drew the group’s attention to a presentation slide about ESC which showed

penetration rates for different countries/regions. Pamela Khumalo asked for more details about ESC

4

and David Ward explained that it was an anti-skid technology that is widely acknowledged to be the

most important safety device since the seat belt. Using a gyro-sensor on the car and a sensor on

each wheel it works by detecting if the steering inputs of the driver are inconsistent with the

vehicle’s direction of travel. If this happens ESC applies the brake to one of the wheels (using the

anti-lock braking system) to correct the slide and to make sure that the steering inputs are matched

to the direction of travel.

Gabriel Sanchez asked for further clarification about the costs of ESC. David Ward explained that a

car needs ABS to get ESC. If the car starts off with a good body shell, it would be worth paying an

extra $70 to get ABS added to it, which is about the approximate cost. ESC would then cost an

additional $30, though it’s not very easy to get this kind of information from manufacturers and

understandably so as its quite commercially sensitive information. A sub-standard car might need

about $200 or $250 dollars to get it to the level it needs to able to pass the UN Regulation. Gabriel

Sanchez pointed out that this extra cost would probably make very little difference to the

affordability of the car. David Ward agreed and said that, in many cases, the taxes that governments

impose on cars add up to a lot more so in fact governments could be doing a lot more to incentivise

safety by providing tax breaks for example. In some cases however, cars are so bad that there isn’t

much that can be done to bring them up to regulatory levels. The other issue to bear in mind is that

components’ manufacturers sometimes point out that with real harmonisation and globalisation,

the costs of safety technologies could be reduced significantly, and in some cases by up to 50%. So

there could be real benefits provided by economies of scale in the long run.

John Chatterton-Ross agreed and said that the same problem exists with motorcycles. It’s not easy

to get the information from manufacturers. 50 million motorcycles are sold each year, maybe 22

million of which are produced in China. If one looks at the Yamaha for example, where the

production is divided between Brazil and China, in a long term joint venture project, a lot of the

motorcycles will be sold in Europe and so will have to comply with regulatory requirements (for

ABS). So this will no doubt make a difference to the economies of scale and is interesting as the bikes

are being produced in these emerging economies and will no doubt influence the total production in

those countries. David Ward agreed and said that it can be frustrating how difficult it can be to

convince manufacturers of the economic benefits of harmonisation.

(e) Recent developments in pedestrian protection

David Ward explained that 270 000 pedestrians are killed on the roads every year or 22% of all road

traffic deaths. Most pedestrian fatalities occur in low income countries but they are a major issue in

all regions. In high income countries they are taking an increasing share of road deaths as other at

risk groups such as vehicle occupants become safer.

In the USA in 2012, 4,743 pedestrians were killed accounting for14 % of crash deaths. In 2002, the

4,851 pedestrians killed made up 11 % of crash deaths. In the EU in 2010 there were 5,582 fatalities

accounting for 18% of total deaths. In 2002 the 9,241 pedestrians killed made up 17 % of crash

deaths.

5

Since the mid-1990s there has been a significant action to mitigate pedestrian injury during an

impact with a passenger car. Standards have been adopted in Japan, the European Union and in the

United Nations (World Forum WP29- GTR No.9) to promote the design of softer and more forgiving

car fronts.

Crash rating for pedestrian protection has also been strongly promoted notably by the European

New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP). A series of tests replicate impacts involving child and

adult pedestrians where impacts occur at 40kph (25mph). Impact sites are then assessed and the

protection offered is rated as fair, marginal or poor.

Protection can be improved with pedestrian friendly bumpers, which deform when they hit a

pedestrian’s leg. Protection is improved if the leg is impacted low down, away from the knee, and if

the forces are spread over a longer length of leg. For the leading edge of the bonnet, improvements

can result from the removal of unnecessarily stiff structures. To protect the head, the bonnet top

area needs to be able to deflect. It is important that sufficient clearance is provided above the stiff

structures beneath, which would stop this deflection. On some types of vehicles the engine

compartment can be altered to create this clearance, other vehicles use deployable protection

systems, to achieve the space.

Since 2009 Euro NCAP has included the test in its 5 star test requirement. This has resulted in

improved performance by manufacturers. By 2012 cars scoring more than 50% in the tests have

reached 88%.

The development of crash avoidance systems such as Autonomous Emergency Braking has opened

up significant further potential to avoid and mitigate pedestrian injuries. Sensor systems are being

used to detect pedestrians and enable AEB to avoid or reduce the severity of an impact. The

combination effect of improved pedestrian crashworthiness (passive) and crash avoidance (active)

promises further gains in safety for pedestrians.

Lowering collision speed is a vital factor in reducing the risk of injuries. This will maximise the

benefit of softer and ‘forgiving’ car fronts.

New tests for pedestrian safety have been carried out by the ADAC and the IIHS. The German ADAC

has tested five emergency brake assistant systems with pedestrian detection. Good results were

achieved by the Lexus LS600h and the Volvo V40. However the ADAC think there is considerable

room for improvement, especially in night driving situations.

The IIHS has also begun testing the effectiveness of pedestrian detection to develop a rating system.

They have also studied the benefits of the UN (GTR 9) and EU crashworthiness tests and found that

they were good predictors of pedestrian injuries and ‘look to be beneficial’.

In general the effectiveness of pedestrian detection and automated braking systems looks

promising. There seem to be strong potential gains from the integration of design and technology

for pedestrian crash protection and crash avoidance.

6

The UN Decade provides a strong impetus to promote GTR 9 and stimulate consumer demand for

vehicles that feature pedestrian safety systems.

Pamela Khumalo mentioned that, in a conversation with a Minister in South Africa, she had heard

that there might one day be the possibility of a system which would deactivate cell phones in a car.

This is significant as some fatalities in South Africa are caused by driver distraction. David Ward said

that he has heard of apps which are available which can send a message to callers saying that the

user of the phone is driving. Paul Boase said that calls can be automatically routed to voicemail by

apps which sense the movement of the car. Pamela Khumalo said that the problem is that if a

system is voluntary it is unlikely to be used in South Africa. It must be enforced. Paul Boase said that

it’s an add-on to the phone network.

John Chatterton-Ross asked whether these pedestrian safety technologies were the same as those

where cars on the roads could communicate with each other as he had seen a presentation about

this recently. Gabriel Kardos said that it was a different technology. The technology being referred

to was Automatic Emergency Braking so that the car would brake if it detected a pedestrian. Also it

was to make the bonnets and bumpers of cars more deformable to reduce any damage to

pedestrians if they were hit. Gabriel Sanchez agreed and said that some cars now have AEB and also

parking assist and so on. The car to car communication is the next level of technology. It would also

include some communication with traffic lights and inform the car that it needs to slow down if it

will soon be approaching a yellow or red light. It might also be able to detect a pedestrian that is

quite far away and even during the night, simply by their cell phone. The car might be able to slow

down automatically. John Chatterton-Ross said that the presentation he had seen was by Honda

and that they had said that this technology would one day include car to motorcycle communication,

which would do a lot to enhance the safety of motorcycles on the road, and would do a lot to help

with junction collisions. No doubt motorcyclists could do a lot to improve their visibility on the road,

but even if they did so human beings are not always good at recognising each other in traffic

situations. So this could be a very exciting development.

David Ward said that this conversation brings up an interesting question about the Decade, which is

that are we trying to ‘level up’? Or are we trying to ‘surge forward’? He feels that levelling up is

intrinsically more interesting, but the challenge is to make it a more exciting issue than a car that can

park itself or do similar things. It’s much harder to mobilise interest in bringing a mature technology

like ESC to developing markets and also other technologies that we already have and that we already

know that work. But people tend to find old technologies boring and then we also get caught up in

all kinds of regulatory issues that prevent their implementation. For example the challenge over AEB

is that it’s not yet in regulation. There isn’t yet a GTR for AEB because there is an ideological dispute

over who is driving the vehicle and this breaks another convention that says that the driver must be

in control of the vehicle at all times. Once there is a regulation in place it becomes much easier to

push for the technology. Gabriel Sanchez said that the focus on older technologies could also

exacerbate the gaps between the developed and developing markets, where developed markets

benefit from the best technologies while developing markets lag behind. John Chatterton-Ross

agreed that it is so frustrating that certain rules can hold progress back so much. In the case of AEB it

is clearly an assistance to the driver rather than a question of ‘taking control’. David Ward agreed

and said that with Electronic Stability Control, it is also the case that a technology takes over

7

momentarily, but this seems to have gone unquestioned. Shingo Akizuki said that conversations are

also continuing in Japan about convoy technology and there is a discussion about who would take

responsibility if the system fails and there is a crash. John Chatterton-Ross said that he feels the

implementation of these technologies is too slow. What will probably happen is that they will test

the technology in Sweden for example, and then, once it has been demonstrated, they might be able

to work on an international agreement on how to implement it.

Pamela Khumalo questioned whether South Africa would have to adopt the regulation for ESC to be

able to adopt it. David Ward agreed that this would be a good idea and that it shouldn’t be too

difficult as South Africa is already a member of WP29. The only problem is that he doesn’t think the

ABS penetration is very high in South Africa yet. A good way to do it would be to adopt GTR 8 and

then give manufacturers until 2018 to do it. Pamela Khumalo asked about pedestrian protection and

David Ward confirmed that GTR 9 could also be adopted through WP29. This could also be done

with a realistic timescale. The problem with adopting AEB is that there is no regulatory standard yet.

Though hopefully this will happen soon.

(f) Update on the World Forum of Harmonisation of Vehicle Regulations

The UN Forum (WP29) meets three times a year in March, June and November (supported by a large

number of subsidiary bodies). For more details see:

http://www.unece.org/trans/main/welcwp29.htm.

Some good news is that a delegation from Brazil attended the last meeting and it looks like they are

thinking about joining.

Recent important road safety related developments include:

Pole Side Impact Protection - A draft version of a new GTR on Pole Side Impact Protection is

expected to be adopted by the World Forum in November.

Pedestrian safety and head restraints - GTRs are in a 2nd phase of development with amendments

expected at the December session of WP29.s Working Party on Passive Safety.

Child Seat Safety - July a new regulation (Reg. 129) came into force which will eventually replace the

current regulation (Reg. 44), which is to be slowly phased out.

Pamela Khumalo said that South Africa had welcomed iRAP and it would be good to have more

information about how to adopt NCAP. David Ward said that Global NCAP would be very interested

to help. Pamela Khumalo confirmed that there was a crash lab at the Bureau of Standards. David

Ward said that it would be good to have this information. If they have a crash lab, this would make it

very easy but if not Global NCAP could just take a selection of cars and ship them to Germany to be

tested. Pamela Khumalo said that taxis were also a problem and it would be great to test some of

these. David Ward agreed that this was a very important area and that in many regions these

minibuses were the main form of public transport and often had high levels of occupancy and high

levels of crashes. He agreed that he would very much like to do a programme of testing for

8

minibuses. Another related issue, of special interest to Fleet Purchasers, is that many companies hire

minibuses to take people around and have very little idea how bad the safety levels are. Big hotel

chains also do the same. Gabriel Kardos said that he is writing a guidance document for taxi

companies and hotels that Johnson & Johnson have contracts with all around the world. Cars have to

have ABS, seatbelts have to be on and so on. David Ward agreed that this was a very important area

and if there was a lot of interest in it, he could talk to the World Bank about this. Pamela Khumalo

agreed and said that NCAP has to be implemented in South Africa and we have to do whatever it

takes.

John Chatterton-Ross agreed that safer hotel taxis are definitely worth pushing for. This could also

spread to the general driving culture of the country. In Britain taxi drivers are exempt from wearing

seatbelts on the basis that they are in and out of the car all the time and also because of late night

fighting. David Ward agreed that this was a fascinating area and much work could be done that

could result in changing driving dynamics and expectations of various cities.

(g) Any other developments

Gabriel Sanchez said that it was interesting that many drivers in the Middle East would rather listen

to the seatbelt reminder for hours rather than put on their seatbelts. Gabriel Kardos also said that a

fatalistic mindset also exacerbated people’s reluctance to wear seatbelts. Pamela Khumalo said that

in South Africa the rate of seatbelt wearing is extremely low and maybe amounts to about 2% of

drivers. In townships like Soweto, seatbelts are considered foolish things that only villagers would

wear. There are now cars available which have seatbelt reminders but people tend to fasten the

seatbelt behind them. Paul Boase said that Transport Canada in partnership with NHTSA had tested

a belt that could tell if the person had put it on before sitting in the seat (because of the weight).

There would then be a delay in the gears being changed which was irritating enough for some

people to use the seatbelt. John Chatterton-Ross said that the reminder in his car gets louder and

louder with time which could provide a good incentive to people to put on their seatbelt. Paul Boase

said that his findings were that if the sound was too annoying, people would attempt to circumvent

it. If it is moderately annoying but not so annoying that people would want to go out of their way to

defeat it then that’s more effective – it seems to be a trade-off. What NHTSA did is capped the

maximum speed if the seatbelt wasn’t on. Gabriel Sanchez said that as long as there is no police

enforcement, it can be difficult to ensure that people follow the rules. David Ward agreed and said

that people sometimes have a perception that some nations are more law abiding than others, but

that actually this is rarely the case. In Britain it took years of education and enforcement. The

original legislation to get seatbelts in cars was 1967 and this was mandated in 1983 and it took years

of campaigning to make this happen. Attitudes have shifted so that the majority now accept it. There

are no shortcuts – one just has to keep persevering with education and enforcement until it gets to

that point. Pamela Khumalo agreed and said that she hopes very much that South Africa gets to a

point of voluntary compliance rather than enforcement. At the moment there are only 17,000 police

officers trying to police 14 million people. John Chatterton-Ross agreed that it take a long time to

change mental attitudes and in Britain it really was a combination of education and enforcement.

David Ward said that one of the advantages of a South African NCAP could be showing people crash

tests, as one could demonstrate to people just how violent crashes are and at the low levels of speed

at which such violence can occur. Shungo Akizuki also said that changing people’s mind sets can take

9

a very long time. Even in the case of technologies, understanding the value of those technologies can

take a long time.

David Ward closed the meeting and thanked everyone for their attendance.