Safety Ratings web text

Project co-financed by the European Commission, Directorate-General Transport and Energy

16/10/2009 Page 1

















Safety Ratings

Please refer to this document as:
SafetyNet (2009) Safety Ratings, retrieved <add date of retrieval here>


Safety Ratings web text


Project co-financed by the European Commission, Directorate-General Transport and Energy
16/10/2009 Page 2




Safety Ratings ......................................................................................................................1
1. What are safety ratings?.............................................................................................4
2. Who are they for?.......................................................................................................4
3. Why use safety ratings?..............................................................................................4
3.1 Ratings as interventions......................................................................................5
3.2 Ratings as monitoring tools.................................................................................5
3.3 Ratings as intermediate outcome targets ............................................................6
4. Safety ratings in use ...................................................................................................6
4.1 Vehicle safety .....................................................................................................6
4.2 Road network safety ratings................................................................................9
4.2.1 European Road Assessment Programme .....................................................10
4.2.2 Predictive safety rating protocols...................................................................10
4.2.3 Retrospective safety rating protocols.............................................................12
4.2.4 Other national and international road assessment programmes................14
4.3 Other safety ratings in use or under development .............................................15
5. Effectiveness of safety rating systems ......................................................................16
5.1 Changing design, upgrading standards and reducing casualties......................16
5.1.1. In-car safety ..............................................................................................16
5.1.2 Road network safety .....................................................................................17
5.1.3 Communicating results..................................................................................18
References...........................................................................................................................19

Safety Ratings web text


Project co-financed by the European Commission, Directorate-General Transport and Energy
16/10/2009 Page 3

Overview
This summary presents an introduction to the safety rating systems in use internationally.
Given the wide variety of systems currently in use, their different methodologies and the
volume of valuable information which they provide, this summary seeks to provide a gateway
to the websites which explain these systems in appropriate detail.

What are safety ratings?
Safety rating systems present impartial information on aspects of traffic system safety.
Safety ratings in use today are objective tools for the assessment and improvement of
aspects of the safety of vehicles, the road network, work-related road safety and international
safety performance. Safety ratings in use either predict safety outcomes for given designs or
provide a retrospective assessment based on crash data.

Who are they for?
The impartial and objective information provided by safety rating systems is designed for use
by policymakers, employers, professionals and practitioners in the establishment and
implementation of road safety strategies as well as fleet buyers, car buyers and road users.

Why use safety ratings?
The level of ambition associated with current European targets and safer system approaches
and goals such as Sustainable Safety and Vision Zero requires greater attention than before
to the provision of a safer network, safer vehicles, better emergency care systems and
compliance of users with key safety rules as well as meaningful shared responsibility and
partnerships on the part of system providers. Safety ratings today address such needs and
provide a basis on which to assess both results that are desired as well as the changes
needed to provide them. They can be used as road safety interventions, road safety policy
and strategy monitoring tools and for setting specific intermediate or sub-targets for road
safety strategies around which stakeholders can focus activity and resource.

Safety ratings in use?
A wide variety of safety rating systems are currently in use or under development providing
an impartial means of assessing the relative performance of:
New vehicles in crash tests (e.g. Euro NCAP, ANCAP, USNCAP, JNCAP)
The safety performance of on the road vehicles in crashes (e.g. Folksam car safety
rating)
Different parts of the road network through risk-mapping and road protection scores
(e.g. EuroRAP, AusRAP (iRAP and usRAP are under development)
National road safety performance in relation to other countries (e.g. ETSC PIN)
The safety quality of commercial road transport operations (e.g. the Swedish Q3
rating)
Safety equipment (e.g. for child restraints NPACS and crash helmets currently being
developed)

Effectiveness of safety ratings?
High quality data is a prerequisite for effective rating systems. Rating systems are most
useful when the tests used in them are realistic; where the tests and analysis take account of
possible factors which might bias the results; where the publication or website explains
clearly what the particular rating means and where the results are disseminated very widely
while, at the same time, being targeted at specific users.

Safety Ratings web text


Project co-financed by the European Commission, Directorate-General Transport and Energy
16/10/2009 Page 4

Communicating results?
There are several issues regarding presentation of results.
Since safety rating systems need to be built on and promote objective safety data, it
is important that the messenger is actually independent as well as seen to
independent of national governmental and industry concerns. Most rating systems
have achieved this with broad international consortiums of motoring and consumer
organisations, governments from several countries and independent experts (See the
EuroRAP and EuroNCAP partnerships)
The assessment procedures need to be transparent
Given the variety of safety rating systems which exist, each publication needs to
explain clearly what the particular safety rating in question means and draws attention
to any limitations
Given the wide audience for results, these need to be disseminated widely but
targeted at the same time at the road using public, fleet buyers and decision makers
in general
1. What are safety ratings?
Safety ratings in use today are objective tools for the assessment and improvement of
aspects of the safety of vehicles, the road network, work-related road safety and international
safety performance.

Safety ratings either predict safety outcomes for given designs or provide a retrospective
assessment based on crash data. Different safety rating systems currently in use provide an
impartial means of assessing the relative performance of:
New vehicles in crash tests (e.g. Euro NCAP, ANCAP, USNCAP, JNCAP)
The safety performance of on the road vehicles in crashes (e.g. Folksam car safety
rating)
Different parts of the road network through risk-mapping and road protection scores
(e.g. EuroRAP, AusRAP (iRAP and usRAP are under development)
National road safety performance in relation to other countries (e.g. ETSC PIN)
The safety quality of commercial road transport operations (e.g. Swedish Q3 rating)

Ratings for safety equipment (e.g. for child restraints NPACS and crash helmets) are
currently under development.
2. Who are they for?
The impartial and objective information provided by safety rating systems is designed for use
by:
Policymakers, employers, professionals and practitioners in the establishment and
implementation of road safety strategies;
Fleet and car buyers and road users in general.
3. Why use safety ratings?
The level of ambition associated with current European targets and safer system approaches
and goals such as Sustainable Safety and Vision Zero requires:
Greater attention than before to the provision of a safer network, safer vehicles, better
emergency care systems and compliance of users with key safety rules

Safety Ratings web text


Project co-financed by the European Commission, Directorate-General Transport and Energy
16/10/2009 Page 5

More account to be taken than before of human limitations, speed and kinetic energy
in road safety interventions and in the institutional arrangements needed to deliver
them
Meaningful shared responsibility to improve safety on the part of system providers (for
the road network, vehicles and the emergency medical system) as well as users,
focusing particularly on the linkages necessary between different parts of the system

Safety ratings today address such needs and are used as:
Road safety interventions to improve standards and designs through the publication
of impartial information which gives system providers an incentive to make
improvements
Policy monitoring tools
Setting specific intermediate or sub-targets for road safety strategies around which
stakeholders can focus activity and resource
3.1 Ratings as interventions
The potential contribution of vehicle and road engineering measures to achieving interim
national road safety targets and long term goals is very large [17][2][04]. As levels of
ambition for road safety results increase, so must the safety quality of the road and vehicle
system. Safety ratings can be used as an intervention to identify, promote and encourage
improved standards and designs to improve levels of crash protection in vehicles and in the
road network.

For example, whereas legislation provides a long-discussed minimum statutory standard of
safety for new cars, it is the aim of EuroNCAP to encourage manufacturers to exceed these
minimum requirements in a short space of time. About 10 years ago, 2 star standards
comprised the industry norm whereas now 4 and 5-star cars for adult occupant protection
comprise the majority of new cars being offered for sale. Such ratings can also encourage
manufacturers to make progress in key areas not yet covered in legislation such as the
fitment of seat belt reminders or electronic stability control.

Policymakers, practitioners, fleet and car buyers, and road users all need impartial,
evidence-based data to inform policymaking, for day to day road safety activity, and for
purchasing and travel decisions. Car buyers, for example, need to assess the safety claims
made by manufacturers made in car advertising. Relevant and impartial information allows
consumers to make well-informed decisions when buying a car.

EuroRAP aims to help prevent crashes and to make those that do happen survivable.
Responsible, law-abiding drivers frequently die on Europe's roads because of small errors.
Safe roads minimise the chance of these situations arising, and if they do occur, they
minimise the severity of the crash.
3.2 Ratings as monitoring tools
Vehicle and road network safety ratings provide a policy tool for monitoring the safety quality
of the vehicle fleet and the road network and any interventions adopted in the national road
safety strategy.

Safety Ratings web text


Project co-financed by the European Commission, Directorate-General Transport and Energy
16/10/2009 Page 6


Examples of performance indicators from safety rating systems in use or under
development in Sweden (SRA 2006)
Percentage of vehicle mileage on roads that fulfil EuroRAP four stars (rural areas)
Percentage of vehicle mileage with vehicles that fulfil EuroNCAP five stars (newly
registered)
Percentage of vehicle mileage with vehicles that fulfil EuroNCAP five stars (existing
vehicle fleet)

EuroRAP, for example, provides an opportunity to produce a regular measure of safety
performance on a consistent basis which shows in detail how risk is changing in different
parts of the road network in different countries, and also shows the potential for improvement
in a way that can be linked to specific programmes. It also shows how infrastructure
improvements in each country could contribute to the EU target for casualty reduction [20].
3.3 Ratings as intermediate outcome targets
Although not presently in use, targets could also be set using safety rating data. For
example, a target could be set to increase the percentage of cars with five star Euro NCAP
ratings in the national fleet or to increase the percentage of vehicle mileage on roads that
fulfil EuroRAP four star ratings in rural areas by a specified amount over a given time period.
The approach to achieving this is likely to be a combination of mass action implementation of
effective safety measures, and major upgrading of some parts of the network to a higher
standard. EuroRAP thus provides a basis on which to assess both what risk levels are
desired, and what changes to the road infrastructure are needed to provide these levels [20].
4. Safety ratings in use
4.1 Vehicle safety
A wide variety of vehicle safety ratings have been developed since the 1970s and these have
evolved largely independently of each other. Predictive systems provide information on the
performance of new cars and equipment in various crash tests, whereas retrospective
systems inform about cars already on the road on the basis of crash data. Predictive
systems provide a more objective assessment of vehicle safety, but only for the conditions
tested, whereas retrospective rating systems, when controlling for external factors, offer
useful information on performance across the range of crash conditions and for all seating
positions. Each system has been shown to usefully contribute to the provision of safety
information to the consumer [9].
4.1.1 Predictive vehicle safety ratings
Predictive systems aim to assess a car's safety performance before it is used on the road.
The predictions are based on controlled whole car crash tests of individual models; tests of
components of the car which have been proven to be important in crashes; and/or visual
inspections and rating of the interior of cars.

Consumer information based on crash tests started in Europe in the late 1980s with German
motoring organisation and magazine publication of results of frontal crash tests. In the early
1990s in the UK, the WHICH? Magazine published the results of the Secondary Safety
Rating System in Cars - a mix of visual inspection and component testing [6]. This system
later became the European Secondary Safety System which was used by the EU-wide

Safety Ratings web text


Project co-financed by the European Commission, Directorate-General Transport and Energy
16/10/2009 Page 7

umbrella organisation the European Consumers organisation (BEUC) and International
Testing [16].

New Car Assessment Programmes (NCAPs)
New Car Assessment Programmes (NCAPs) assess a new car's safety performance before
it is used on the road. They have been established in the US, Australia, Japan and Europe
and can be an important catalyst for improving vehicle safety. While tests vary over different
NCAPs, predictions can be based on controlled whole car crash tests of individual models;
tests of components of the car which have been proven to be important in crashes; and/or
visual inspections and rating of the interior of cars. The aim of this information is to provide
objective data to highlight the maximum level of protection available to car buyers and to
complement regulation which, in EU Whole Vehicle Type Approval, should stipulate a high
but minimum level of protection.

European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP)
Euro NCAP Established in 1997, Euro NCAP is the most sophisticated of all the new car
assessment programmes. Euro NCAP provides motoring consumers, with an independent
assessment of the safety performance of some of the most popular cars sold in Europe.
Through its stringent vehicle crash testing, Euro NCAP has rapidly become a catalyst for
encouraging significant safety improvements to new car design. Euro NCAP is backed by
five European governments, the European Commission as well as motoring and consumer
organisations in every EU country. Euro NCAP is acknowledged as the most advanced of all
the current NCAP programmes, and the Australian New Car Assessment programme has
aligned its protocols to it. Euro NCAP provides star ratings of the performance of new cars
using state of the art crash tests and inspection protocols:
Frontal impact tests using an offset deformable barrier intended to represent the most
frequent type of road crash, resulting in serious or fatal injury. This test is a severe
test of the cars ability to survive the impact without suffering passenger compartment
intrusion Example of a EuroNCAP crash test
A side impact test addresses the second most important crash configuration of car to
car side impact although the lower end of severe and fatal crash severity
A pole test addresses head injury in side impact which is the most frequently
seriously injured body region in side impacts;
A child protection protocol is used to encourage manufacturers to take responsibility
for protecting children and to provide suitable facilities for the fitment of child
restraints
Pedestrian protection sub-system tests based on those devised by the EEVC to
assess protection afforded to the lower leg by the bumper, the leading edge of the
bonnet and child and the bonnet top area. These replicate crashes resulting in
severe injury involving child and adult pedestrians where impacts occur at 40kph. In
general, the car industry has still to respond well to these tests in their designs
Electronic Stability Control could drastically reduce crash occurrence, yet there are
huge differences in the extent to which it is offered to car buyers across the EU. A
rating is provided giving level of fitment for different models in different countries.

Safety Ratings web text


Project co-financed by the European Commission, Directorate-General Transport and Energy
16/10/2009 Page 8


The European programme also uses visual inspection in addition to crash testing in
determining the safety rating assessment. Star ratings are provide for adult occupant
protection (5 stars), child protection (5 stars) and pedestrian protection (4 stars) for nine
classes of vehicle from supermini to large off-road 4x4 vehicle. According to EuroNCAP, the
highest ever score achieved for adult occupant protection is the Nissan Qashqai (5 stars 37
points), for child protection Toyota Prius (43 points) and for pedestrian protection, the Citroen
C6 (28 points).
4.1.2 Retrospective vehicle safety ratings
Retrospective safety ratings can be of particular help in assisting buyers of used cars, which
have the lion share of the car sales market [9]. In retrospective systems, safety ratings are
based on the actual performance of cars in real crashes. The frequency and severity of injury
to car occupants in individual model cars are determined by examination of police crash
statistics and/or insurance injury claim data. The earliest ratings to back to 1975 to those
published based on insurance claims data by the Highway Loss Data institute [15]. In
general, they have been in use over the last 15 years.

While the general approach is the same for all systems, there are many differences in the
exact methodology, such as the types of crashes included in the analyses, whether seat belt
usage is accounted for, how the effects of exposure are controlled and whether or not the
rating also takes into account the effects on other road users outside the vehicle. Aspects of
the different methodologies and the adjustments made for exposure have been summarised
[9][3][SARAC II]. The more these potentially confounding factors are controlled, the better the
rating system [9].

Folksam Car Safety Rating System (Sweden)
Since the 1980s, Folksam has published injury risk ratings based on paired comparisons of
car-to-car crashes from police reports where the injury outcome in both vehicles is
considered.

Folksam colour coded safety rating:
Green: At least 30% higher safety than the average car
Blue: At least 15% higher safety than the average car
Yellow: At least as safe as the average car
Orange: At most 15% lower safety than the average car
Red: Worse than the orange group

In the 2005 rating, cars are allocated to one of four size groupings based on weight. For all
cars an average crash safety rating is calculated. Early Folksam ratings indicated that if all
cars were designed to be equal to the best current car in each class, 50% of all fatal and
disabling injuries could be avoided [14]. An analysis of Folksam data on car to car crashes in
Sweden between 1994 and 1996 showed a decrease of 35% in the relative risk of fatal and
severe injury associated with 'new' car designs compared with 'old' designs [18].

University of Oulu Passive Safety Ratings (Finland)
Since 1987, the Traffic Safety Committee of Insurance Companies (VALT) in Finland have
regularly published ratings compiled by the University of Oulu comparing crash performance
of cars in two-car collisions between passenger cars on Finnish roads. The rating concluded
that if the crash protection of all the car models in the same weight class matched the best
then 27% fewer drivers would be injured in urban car to car collisions [24].

Safety Ratings web text


Project co-financed by the European Commission, Directorate-General Transport and Energy
16/10/2009 Page 9


Car and driver: injury accident and casualty rates (UK)
In 1991 in the UK the first edition of Car and Driver: Injury Accident and Casualty Rates
was published giving information on comparative accident involvement and injury risks of
popular makes and models of car [8]. The rating, based on the risk of driver-only injury in car-
to-car injury accidents reported to the police showed that if the safety of all models were
improved to the level achieved or exceeded by the safest twentieth of models then the
number of drivers injured in car to car accidents would fall by 12% and the number killed or
seriously injured by 22%.

Used Car Safety Ratings (UCSR) (Australia)
The UCSR were developed by Monash Universitys Accident Research Centre MUARC
based on records of over 2.8 million crashes on Australasian roads. The UCSR rates cars
according to their on-road crash performance and how well they protect drivers in a crash.
Also rated is the risk each vehicle presents to other drivers involved in a crash with that
particular model. The ratings are presented in governmental websites e.g. VicRoads Used
Car Safety Ratings (Australia), the Transport Accident Commission and Land Transport New
Zealand as well on websites of the Australasian motoring organisations.

Retrospective ratings: recent evaluations and future data needs
The Safety Rating Advisory Committee (SARAC)is an international forum initiated by the
German insurance organisation GDV and the European Comit Europen des Assurances
(CEA). It brings together experts from the crash research community, government agencies,
universities and automobile manufacturers. Research was undertaken in the SARAC 1 and
SARAC II projects between 1999-2006 funded by the European Commission and the Comit
Europen des Assurances (CEA). In SARACII, safety ratings from around the world were
examined to identify and develop advanced methods to assess crashworthiness and
aggressivity and other aspects of statistical reliability, presentation of results and areas
requiring further research.

SARACII indicated that an ideal retrospective rating should have:
A measure of impact severity
A range of variables that provide good proxies for impact severity if no measure is
available
Good data on non-vehicle variables that affect injury outcomes and differ from vehicle
to vehicle
Full reporting on injury and non injury crashes

None of the existing data sets on which rating systems are based meet these requirements
in full. No existing rating has a measure of impact severity and it is not clear how well the
available proxy measures represent impact severity. In addition to the need for action on
assessing and recording impact severity, SARAC also highlights the need for action on the
recording of vehicle annual kilometrage/mileage, the Vehicle Identification Number (as
required in the US) and the availability of Event Data Recorders all of which would improve
the retrospective rating data sets.

Apart from the the Folksam ratings, there is less promotion in Europe of retrospective ratings
these days and this deficit needs to be addressed.

Safety Ratings web text


Project co-financed by the European Commission, Directorate-General Transport and Energy
16/10/2009 Page 10

4.2 Road network safety ratings
Road assessment programmes have been developed in recent years to monitor the safety
quality of the road network and to draw attention to the need for improvements. Such
programmes have predictive ratings which look at the protective quality of various elements
of a road network as well as retrospective elements which involve risk-mapping and
performance tracking according to specific protocols. A variety of safety ratings are in use or
in development:
4.2.1 European Road Assessment Programme
Developed as a sister programme to Euro NCAP, the EuroRAP programme was piloted in
2001 in four countries and has now launched in twenty European countries. EuroRAP
currently provides risk ratings and star ratings for major rural roads in several European
countries. The work focussed on major roads outside built-up areas, because it is on these
roads that most deaths in Europe occur. The aim has been to cover a network of interurban
roads on which at least 30% of national fatalities occurred. Route lengths within the
EuroRAP networks typically average around 20kms, but many of the links are much shorter.
Comparisons are made between roads of similar types, both within and between countries.
While the focus is mainly on car occupants, the aim is to extend the programme to include
the safety performance of roads for all users in due course.

EuroRAPs objectives
To reduce death and serious injury on European roads rapidly through a programme of
systematic testing of risk that identifies major safety shortcomings which can be
addressed by practical road improvement measures;
To ensure assessment of risk lies at the heart of strategic decisions on route
improvements, crash protection and standards of route management;
And to forge partnerships between those responsible for a safe roads system - motoring
organisations, vehicle manufacturers and road authorities.

Source: EuroRAP

Three main predictive and retrospective rating protocols have been developed by EuroRAP
for a systematic approach to road assessment: EuroRAP analyses aim to contribute at
three levels providing a systematic audit of the road network, understanding the sources of
risk, and indicating the priorities for network improvement [21].

EuroRAPs rating protocols

Risk mapping


Colour-coded maps showing the risk of death and serious injury that
road-users face on different roads with extra mapping for road
authorities


Performance
tracking


Identifying whether fewer people are being killed or seriously injured
on a road over time and identifying the countermeasures that are most
effective

Star Rating


A Star Rating showing how well a road protects road-users if a crash
occurs.
Source: EuroRAP

Safety Ratings web text


Project co-financed by the European Commission, Directorate-General Transport and Energy
16/10/2009 Page 11

4.2.2 Predictive safety rating protocols
Star Rating: Star Rating is a scale showing how well a road protects the user from death or
serious injury once a crash occurs. The aim of the assessment is to evaluate the safety that
is 'built in' to the road through design, in combination with the way traffic is managed on it.
Data on road design and the standard of a road's safety features is collected by drive-
through inspections in specially equipped vehicles. Large scale inspection has taken place in
Sweden and Germany. Trained inspectors assess and score each road's safety features and
hazards, either in real time (as the road is driven), or later from video images captured along
the route. This standard inspection formula can be used on a variety of road types and allows
roads across Europe to be assessed and compared on the same basis. EuroRAP's Star
Rating differs from normal road safety audits in that the aim is to assess the general standard
of a route not identify individual blackspots. The scoring system is based on the road design
elements that correspond to each of the four main crash types on Europe's roads.

The elements of EuroRAPs Safety Rating scoring system
1. Head-on Crashes: measures of how well traffic lanes are separated
2. Run-off Crashes: checks for roadside protection (for example, safety fencing protecting
rigid poles, lampposts and trees)
3. Junction Crashes: checks for junction layout and frequency
4. Pedestrians and Cyclists: checks for facilities and separation from vehicles where
vulnerable road-users are present

Source: EuroRAP

The protection scoring system is closely linked to vehicle speed, and demonstrates that an
appropriate balance between speed and road design can produce high levels of protection
on most road types. The initial focus on scoring the passive safety of the road allows a direct
link to be made with vehicle safety assessment by considering injury severity in both cases
as a function of the biomechanical forces involved in the impact. To make this link, minimum
relative risks for the RPS rating are based on the speeds at which car occupants can be
expected to survive an impact in a car rated highly in EuroNCAP 70km/h or below for head
on crash protection, 50km/h for intersection crashes and run off crashes (although here
occupant protection will depend on the nature of the obstacle hit) and 30 km/h for impacts
with pedestrians. Pedestrian and vehicle movements would need to be segregated on any
roads with higher speed limits, in order to gain maximum RPS ratings for this crash type.


Safety Ratings web text


Project co-financed by the European Commission, Directorate-General Transport and Energy
16/10/2009 Page 12

A review in 2004 of EuroRAP Road Protection Scores showed that:
On many roads there is substantial scope to improve the potential for injury prevention
and crashes involving fatal injury will continue unless this is done.
On average, single carriageway RPS scores are lower than divided (dual carriageway)
roads. Single carriageways show more variability in their design and associated
protection from injury.
Many roads score poorly for run-off protection, reflecting the fact that fatal injuries are
likely to occur unless barriers or very wide safety zones can be provided. There is
considerable variability in run-off protection along individual routes.
The lowest scoring roads score poorly for all three crash types head-ons, single-vehicle
runoffs and those at junctions.
Most of the divided roads that have been assessed do not score the full four stars
available, even though they are the safer roads in all highway networks. Scope remains
to reduce serious injuries from crashes at uncontrolled junctions and from vehicle run-
offs.
On ordinary 2-lane roads, despite the lower speeds adopted, protection is often limited by
narrow safety zones, poor access provision and by the lack of measures to limit the
interaction of opposing traffic streams. Some good examples of median treatment of
these roads can be seen in Sweden, the Netherlands and Ireland.

Source: (Lynam et al, 2004)

Within the European Union, road inspections have already been extensively used in Sweden
and Germany, and trialled in Britain, Ireland and Northern Ireland, the Netherlands and
Spain. Results from the four largest of these show that, for example, between a quarter and
a half of motorways in these countries fail to score four stars, mainly due to lack of high
quality roadside protection [21]. However, the pressing need is to find better median, run-off
and junction protection at reasonable cost on single carriageway roads. For EuroRAP results
on the protection a road provides in the event of a crash in several European countries, see
Star Rating results.

Road Protection Star Rating in Sweden
Sweden was the first to begin and publish a programme of Star Rating based on the
EuroRAP RPS protocol. Using a specially equipped Toyota Hiace loaned to the programme
from Toyota Sweden, inspections started in October 2003 and covered 1,000km of the
national road network, concentrating on two main roads between Stockholm and
Gothenburg. Pilot results were launched in February 2004, and proved to be of great interest
to the media, professionals and the public alike.

Inspections continued in 2004 with the addition of data for a further 7,090km. Results for
3,780km in the south of the country were launched in December of that year, whilst 3,310km
in the north were launched in February 2005.
Of particular significance in the Swedish programme has been the finding that a correlation
exists between the number and location of fatal accidents and the Star Rating awarded to
particular road sections. Sections with a high number of fatalities generally received a poor
Star Rating.

Source: EuroRAP

Safety Ratings web text


Project co-financed by the European Commission, Directorate-General Transport and Energy
16/10/2009 Page 13

4.2.3 Retrospective safety rating protocols
Risk Mapping is a way of measuring and mapping the number of crashes on individual road
sections.
Under EuroRAP's Risk Mapping protocol, safety indicators based on the road network, crash
numbers and traffic flow are used to produce four maps:
Risk per kilometre
Risk per vehicle kilometre travelled
Risk in relation to roads with similar flow levels
Economic potential for crash reduction

Risk is divided into five coloured bands from high-risk (black) to low risk (green). EuroRAP
maps give various insights into risk and are designed to support messages aimed at the
differing needs and levels of expertise of the target audiences, ranging from the public
through to road engineers and policymakers. For example, EuroRAP explains that the maps
directed to policymakers and roads authorities comprise:
Crash density - showing crash rates per kilometre of road, illustrating where highest
and lowest numbers of crashes occur within a network.
Crash rate in relation to similar roads - comparing the crash rate of similar roads with
similar traffic flows, illustrating which road sections have a higher rate. Separate road
groups are considered - for example, motorways, main roads with traffic flows below
10,000 vehicles per day, main roads with daily traffic flow between 10,000 and 20,000
vehicles per day, and main roads with daily traffic flow greater than 20,000 vehicles
per day.
Potential for crash reduction - providing information on the number of crashes that
might be saved if crash rates of road sections, with risk above the average roads of a
similar flow, were reduced to the average or to an alternative defined standard risk.
This information can be used for considering investment decisions, providing
authorities and policy-makers with a valuable tool for estimating the total number of
crashes that could potentially be avoided if safety on a road were improved. Used
with cost information, this map can indicate locations where the largest return on
investment can be expected.

Results to date indicate that there are large differences in fatality rate between groups of
countries for similar road types. For example, rates for Spanish motorways are more than
four times than those in Sweden, Britain and the Netherlands, and rates in Austria and
Belgium more than double. Fatal accident rates for Dutch and Swedish 2-lane roads are the
lowest although only roads in the national networks are included in these countries. Higher
rates in UK and Ireland reflect in part the greater incidence of small urban areas along these
routes. Junction risk is the most important component in Britain while run-off accidents give
rise to the highest proportion of risk in Spain [21]. For EuroRAP results on risk mapping in
ten European countries, see Risk Mapping results

Safety Ratings web text


Project co-financed by the European Commission, Directorate-General Transport and Energy
16/10/2009 Page 14



Risk Mapping in Spain
Spanish Risk Mapping began in 2002 with the production of a pilot risk map for Catalonia -
the first time that such information had been made publicly available.
Progressively, the Spanish EuroRAP programme has been extended to cover the complete
road network, including over 20,600km of the national system.
In 2003 the first map illustrating risk on the Spanish RCE (Carreteras del Estado) was
published. The most dangerous region was found to be Galicia, with 52% of road sections in
the area categorised as high (black) or medium-high (red) risk. Examination of results by
province showed Pontevedra, Lugo, Asturias and Burgos to have the highest risk overall.
In 2004, further developments were made with the publication of both an accident density
map and updated risk map - the first time national EuroRAP results had been launched using
both forms of information. The meaning of risk was not well understood by the Spanish public
and density maps were used to explain how road administrations set priorities for action and
the connection between high traffic flows and high accident numbers. Mapping will be
extended to the Navarra and Basque regions.
Source: EuroRAP

Performance Tracking is a way of tracking the number of crashes occurring on individual
road sections over time - which are getting safer, which are getting worse, and which are
staying the same. The EuroRAP process of tracking the performance of road sections over
time has several stages: data is initially analysed to identify road sections which have shown
a reduction in the number of collisions over time and those where there has been little or no
change; data for individual years is then checked to assess consistency of the patterns; and
finally, highway authorities are asked for information on remedial, enforcement or education
measures that have been implemented that might explain the reduction in crashes. For
EuroRAP results of performance tracking in several European countries, see Performance
Tracking results

The EuroRAP protocol is currently being extended to include crash likelihood and to consider
risks associated with modes other than car.
4.2.4 Other national and international road assessment programmes
Following on from the successful development of EuroRAP, AusRAP and USRAP have now
been formed based on the EuroRAP philosophy and basic methodology. Similarly, iRAP has
been formed as an international umbrella association to develop road assessment worldwide

Australian Road Assessment Programme (AusRAP)
AusRAP aims to provide a safety rating for the national highway network across Australia.
This will generate consumer information for the public and give road engineers and planners
vital benchmarking information to show them how well, or badly, their roads are performing
compared with others, both in their own and other countries. AusRAP is an initiative of the
Australian Automobile Association (AAA). AAA is the national association of Australia's State
and Territory motoring clubs and its first report was published in 2005. The objectives are:

Safety Ratings web text


Project co-financed by the European Commission, Directorate-General Transport and Energy
16/10/2009 Page 15

To reduce deaths and injuries on Australias roads by systematically assessing risk
and identifying safety shortcomings that can be addressed with practical road-
improvement measures
To put risk assessment at the heart of strategic decisions on road improvements,
crash protection and standards of road management.

AusRAP uses two protocols:
Risk Mapping, based on a roads history of casualty crashes and traffic flow. Previous
AusRAP reports, released in 2004 and 2005, used risk-maps to provide a measure of
the safety performance of the AusLink National Network. Road crash fatalities on this
network typically account for around 15%of annual road deaths in Australia
Star Ratings which include the influence of crash likelihood as well as injury severity,
involve an inspection of a number of design elements such as lane and shoulder
width as well as, for example, the presence of safety barriers. Between 1 and 5-stars
are awarded to road links depending on the level of safety which is built-in to the
road. The star ratings do not take into account a roads crash history.

US Road Assessment programme (usRAP)
Influenced by success of EuroRAP and AusRAP, usRAP commenced with a pilot study risk
mapping of the rural road system in two States in 2004 and published findings in 2006. The
second and current pilot phase involves risk mapping in two further states and performance
tracking in original mapped states. usRAP is seeking to ensure development in line with
international standards.

International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP)
iRAP is an iniatitive supported by the World Bank and the FIA Foundation aimed at
developing risk mapping and audit protocols for low to middle income countries. The World
Bank has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the International Road Assessment
Programme (iRAP) for a five-year collaboration to develop a business plan for designing and
then implementing iRAPs road risk mapping and road audit protocols. The agreement will be
overseen for the Bank by the Global Road Safety Facility, hosted at World Bank
headquarters in Washington D.C iRAP is currently developing protocols in South Africa,
Malaysia, Costa Rica and Chile. An inspection system is being used as a substitute for
crash injury data to give an assessment of priorities for remedial treatment. iRAP will look at
risk mapping and road protection scores for all road users since in low to middle income
countries crashes involving vulnerable road users form a large part of the death toll. It is a
particularly interesting development for high income countries too, since it will provide a
focus for developing the rating system both to take account of urban environments, and to
consider the likelihood and protective factors associated with vulnerable road users.
4.3 Other safety ratings in use or under development

Work-related safety ratings in Sweden
Swedish trade unions in cooperation with environmental and road safety organisations have
developed a ranking system for heavy goods transport. This ranking system is called Q3 and
is modelled on Euro NCAP. It is based on working environment, environmental and road
safety requirements (http://www.q3.se/). While the system has limited coverage to date, it is
becoming well accepted and is considered a worthwhile initiative.

Safety Ratings web text


Project co-financed by the European Commission, Directorate-General Transport and Energy
16/10/2009 Page 16


ETSC PIN ratings
The ETSC's Road Safety Performance (PIN) Index is a new policy instrument to help EU
Member States in improving road safety. Started in June 2006, the Index covers several
areas of road safety including road user behaviour, infrastructure and vehicles, as well as
road safety policymaking more generally. National research organisations and independent
researchers from 30 countries participating in the programme are ensuring that any
assessment carried out within the programme is based on scientific evidence and is
effectively communicated to European road safety policymakers.

To facilitate the collection of accurate data from all 27 EU Member States, as well as
Norway, Switzerland and Israel, ETSC has set up a the PIN Panel of national focal points
comprising 30 high level national experts from ETSC's network of member organisations and
other organisations.
Eight individuals, who are particularly committed to ETSC and road safety policy, form the
PIN Steering Committee providing guidance to the PIN Programme Secretariat.
PIN to date has concentrated on final outcomes the fall or otherwise in road deaths - as
well as intermediate outcomes for speed, seatbelt wearing and drink driving. For key findings
to date, see
PIN publications.

The ETSC PIN programme comprises:
PIN Flashes profile-raising quarterly overviews of specific road safety topics
PIN Reports wider-ranging annual reviews of a range road safety performance indices
PIN International events to launch the annual PIN Reports
PIN Talks - National events in each Member State to encourage that countrys road
safety effort

Pin Flash 6, October 2007
Following up on Road Safety PIN Flash 2, issued in September 2006, this latest ranking
under the PIN Programme shows that between 2001 and 2006, Luxembourg, France and
Portugal, three countries with a medium level of road safety, have progressed best. These
countries have reached a reduction in road deaths more than 40% over five years. However,
in Lithuania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Estonia and Romania, the number of road deaths was higher
in 2006 than in 2001. Only a slight reduction was registered in Poland, Slovakia and
Slovenia.

If current trends continue, the European Union will not reach its target in 2010. This is true for
the new, enlarged Union and even for the old Union of 15 Member States. Estimates show
that the target of a maximum 25,000 deaths per year for the EU-25 will be reached only in
2015 if current efforts are not substantially enhanced. We need a new, fresh impetus in all
countries if we want to make up for this delay and deliver what the citizens of Europe
deserve a safe and sustainable road transport system that safeguards the highest level of
protection for everyone across the continent.

Source: ETSC, 2007


Safety Ratings web text


Project co-financed by the European Commission, Directorate-General Transport and Energy
16/10/2009 Page 17


New Programme for the Assessment of Child-restraint Systems NPACS
The objective of NPACS (currently under development) is the establishment of scientifically
based EU wide harmonised test and rating protocols that will provide consumers with clear
and understandable information about how much protection a CRS can provide during a
crash as well as the usability of child restraint systems.
5. Effectiveness of safety rating systems
A prerequisite for effective rating systems is high quality information. Rating systems are
most useful when the tests used in them are realistic and evidence-based; whether the tests
and analysis take account of possible factors which might bias the results; where the
publication or website explains clearly what the particular rating means and where the results
are disseminated very widely while, at the same time, being targeted at specific users.
5.1 Changing design, upgrading standards and reducing
casualties
Whilst evidence-based legislation can ensure a uniform acceptable level of safety across the
product range, predictive and retrospective safety ratings can create a demand for safety
products and outcomes which can produce more rapid responses in individual product
design.
5.1.1. In-car safety
Since the US NCAP programme started, the NHTSA report there has been around a one-
third reduction in the probability of a life-threatening injury in NCAP passenger cars as
measured by controlled crash test results. In recent years NCAP light vehicle performance
has led to about a 25 per cent reduction in the calculated probability of AIS 4 or above
injured [12] [13]. In Australia, research has also indicated a good correlation between
ANCAP testing and the retrospective crash data in terms of injury risk and injury severity
[22].

Monitoring has shown that together with key legislative provisions, Euro NCAP has had a
significant influence on the way that cars are designed [11]. Cars with three or four stars are
approximately 30% safer, compared to two star cars or cars without an Euro NCAP score, in
car to car collisions [19]. In the last decade, crash data had confirmed that a 50% reduction
in the risk of serious injury has been achieved in new car models [SARAC II] . The European
Commission stated in 2000 that EuroNCAP had become the single most important
mechanism for achieving advances in vehicle safety [5].

While car manufacturers were initially very hostile to the development of EuroNCAP, several
now use star ratings in their advertising e.g. Renault. One of the many claims by industry
was that the assessment criteria were so severe that no car could achieve four stars, for
occupant protection. However, from July 1997, results indicated a steady stream of cars
meeting this level of safety. In June 2001, a further milestone was reached when the Renault
Laguna became the first car to be awarded 5 stars for occupant protection. Although other
cars were awarded 5 stars later, it was suggested that the requirements were too severe for
a supermini. However in November 2004, the Renault Modus became the first supermini to
gain 5 stars. Standards have increased to the extent that cars typically achieve this rating
and increasingly manufacturers see 5 stars as the goal for all their new models Euro NCAP,
2007. As the Chief Executive of Fiat stated at EuroNCAPs 10
th
Anniversary, Not only Euro

Safety Ratings web text


Project co-financed by the European Commission, Directorate-General Transport and Energy
16/10/2009 Page 18

NCAP has been instrumental in bringing forward concrete safety advances, but it has also
managed to instil a consideration for safety in the minds of consumers and to effectively
change their patterns. The European Automobile Manufacturers are proud to be associated
with this initiative, and we warmly congratulate all involved in Euro NCAP for their good work,
for their dedication, for their achievements.

Pedestrian protection
At the same time, the car industrys response to pedestrian protection, however, has been
very poor and is only expected to improve when the new legislation comes into force. To
date, only one car has been awarded 4 stars in the pedestrian protection tests, and less than
7% of cars tested have achieved 3 stars.
5.1.2 Road network safety
Several years of annual reporting of risk mapping results in Britain and Spain has generated
substantial media interest in the variation in risk between roads, and the roads where risk is
reducing or remaining high. Many safety engineers in Britain are beginning to use the
EuroRAP risk data alongside their more traditional accident analysis techniques.
Performance tracking of risk over the period 1999 to 2004 has identified reductions of about
half in the length of roads in the highest risk band in Spain, Britain and Sweden (Lynam et al
2007)

An assessment of 1200kms of motorway in Germany (ADAC Press Release, July 2006)
comparing the EuroRAP star rating system with relevant accident data showed that
motorways rated with four stars produced 50% fewer severe run-off accidents than three star
routes. Studies in Sweden and Britain [4] comparing average fatal and serious accident
rates for roads with different star ratings have shown differences in rating of one star to be
associated with 25-33% reduction in accidents. More detailed comparisons of ratings and
accident rates for individual accident types show the correlation to hold for run-off and head-
on accidents, but suggest the junction assessment methodology needs improving.

In Sweden, the safe speed policy is drawing on EuroRAP RPS ratings to demonstrate
whether roads provide sufficient protection to warrant higher speed limits.
5.1.3 Communicating results
There are several issues regarding presentation of results. It is important that:
Given that safety rating systems need to be built on objective safety data, the
messenger i.e. the safety rating partnership is actually independent as well as seen
to independent of national governmental and industry concerns. Most rating systems
have achieved this with broad international consortiums of motoring and consumer
organisations, governments from several countries and independent experts (See the
EuroRAP and EuroNCAP partnerships).
Given the variety of safety rating systems which exist, each publication explains
clearly what the particular safety rating in question means and draws attention to any
limitations;
Given the wide audience for results, that these are disseminated widely but targeted
at the same time at the road using public, fleet buyers and decision makers in
general.

Safety Ratings web text


Project co-financed by the European Commission, Directorate-General Transport and Energy
16/10/2009 Page 19


Euro NCAP has successfully communicated its findings to road safety professionals and the
car industry. As Bernard Gauvin, the French delegate to Europe NCAP stated at
EuroNCAPs 10
th
Anniversary, the rating system was delivered in a proper way and using
very simple and easy-to-use information. It was non-controversial information both in
scientific and commercial aspects and so it was accepted by everybody including consumer
associations, media and manufacturers.

EuroNCAP seems to have been successful in promoting its findings to fleet and car buyers.
A SARAC survey of EuroNCAP ratings in Spain and Sweden concluded that Euro NCAP
needed to be promoted more widely and effectively so it plays a higher role in fleet
purchasing decisions and encourages fleet managers to develop fleet purchase policies to
include specific safety criteria. The postal and telephone survey also concluded that both
members of the public and fleet purchases needed be educated about sources of information
about vehicle safety. Price and reliability seem to be more important than safety in the
purchasing decisions of fleet management [SARAC II] .

Mandatory stickers of Euro NCAP ratings on car windscreens in car show rooms has been
promoted by safety organisations, as has Euro NCAP promotion by governments not only in
terms of general dissemination of ratings but in their in-house policies as in Sweden.

EuroRAP The value of identifying risk distributions across the major interurban road network,
and showing roads which have been improved substantially and those that continue to show
persistent safety problems, is now well established through the regular publication of
EuroRAP results in many countries.

EuroRAP has focused in multi-agency working, in its research and dissemination and in
popularising topics in the messages it provides. This has commanded widespread media
attention. EuroRAP has provided a full programme of launches/conferences, and a website
attracting more than 2,000 visitors per month. The 2005 risk mapping report covered 18
countries; 20,000 copies were distributed worldwide. The 2006 report added information from
5 new countries, and included the first ever pan-European risk map [21]. From February
2006, the main feature of the dissemination was the Safer Roads Save Lives campaign
which aims to increase awareness amongst the media of the importance of road
infrastructure as a life saving measure, so that they can promote the role of safer roads
alongside safer drivers and safer cars, with the result that decision-makers feel authorised to
devote funds to large scale improvements to road infrastructure.

Safety Ratings web text


Project co-financed by the European Commission, Directorate-General Transport and Energy
16/10/2009 Page 20


References
1. Breen, J. (1997) Overview Of International Car Crash Performance Ratings, Paper
presented to International Symposium on Real World Crashes, CCIS, Loughborough,
1997

2. Broughton, J., Allsop, R.E., Lynam, D.A. and McMahon, C.M. (2000) The Numerical
Context for Setting National Casualty Reduction Targets, Crowthorne, Transport
Research Laboratory Ltd. TRL Report No. 382

3. Cameron, M., Narayan, S., Newstead, S., Ernvall ,T., Laine, V. and Langwieder. K.
(2001) Comparative Analysis Of Several Vehicle Safety Rating Systems, ESV Paper
Number 2001-S4-O-68

4. Castle, J., Lynam, D., Scoons, J., and Lawson, S..D. (2007) EuroRAP Road
Protection Score UK trials Final report EuroRAP December 2007

5. Commission of the European Communities (2000) Priorities in EU road safety:
progress report and ranking of actions. COM(2000)125 final. Brussels

6. Consumers Association, The Secondary Safety Rating System for Cars. London
(1993) IT, The European Secondary Safety Rating System for Cars. London:
International Testing, 1994

7. Department of Transport (1995) Choosing Safety, 1996 edition, HMSO, London

8. Department of Transport (1991) Cars: Make and Model: The risk of driver injury and
car accident rates in Great Britain: 1991, HMSO, London

9. ETSC (1995) Consumer information on the crash performance of cars: The role of the
EU, European Transport Safety Council, Brussels

10. European Commission, DG Transport,
http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/road/roadsafety/equipment/euroncap/index_en.ht
m

11. Fails, A. and Minton, R. Comparison of EuroNCAP assessments with injury causation
in accidents, TRL Ltd, Crowthorne, Berkshire Document number 319, 2001

12. Hackney, J.J. and Quarles, V. (1982) NHTSA The New Car Assessment Program
status and effect. National Highway Safety Administration

13. Hackney, J. ,Kahane, C., & Chan, R. National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration,
Activities of the New Car Assessment Program in the United States, 15th International
Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Melbourne, Australia, May
1996


Safety Ratings web text


Project co-financed by the European Commission, Directorate-General Transport and Energy
16/10/2009 Page 21

14. Hgg, A., Kamrn, B.V,. Koch, M., Lie, A., Malmstedt, C., Nygren, A., and Tingvall, C.
(1992) Folksam Car Model Safety Rating 1991-92, Folksam Research, Stockholm,
1992

Safety Ratings web text


Project co-financed by the European Commission, Directorate-General Transport and Energy
16/10/2009 Page 22


15. Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI), Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 1975

16. IT (1994) The European Secondary Safety Rating System for Cars. London:
International Testing

17. Koornstra, M. et al. (2002) SUNflower: a comparative study of the development of
road safety in Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. Leischendam,
Dutch Institute for Road Safety Research, 2002

18. Larsson, P., Lie, A., Tingvall, C. (SRA), Krafft, M. & Kullgren, A. Folksam Research,
The crash safety of new car models - A comparative accident study of new versus old
car models, ESV, 1996

19. Lie ,A. and Tingvall, C. (2002) How do Euro NCAP results correlate with real-life injury
risks? A paired comparison study of car-to-car crashes.Traffic Injury Prevention ,
2002,3:288 291

20. Lynam, D., Hummel, T., Barker, J ., and Lawson, S.D. European Road Assessment
Programme EuroRAP I (2004) TECHNICAL REPORT, EuroRAP May 2004

21. Lynam, D., Castle, J., Scoons, J., Lawson, S.D. , Hill, J. and Charman, S. (2007)
EuroRAP II Technical Report (2005-6) on behalf of the Foundation for Road Safety
Research and EuroRAP AISBL, EuroRAP II: AGREEMENT NUMBER TREN-04-ST-
S07.37010, March 2007

22. Newstead, S., Cameron, M. Updated correlation of results from the Australian New
Car Assessment programme with real crash data from 1987-1996. MUARC, Report
No 52, 1999.

23. Newstead, S., Cameron, M. & Watson, L. (2007) Vehicle safety ratings estimated
from police reported crash data: 2007 update Australian and New Zealand crashes
during 1987-2005, Monash University Accident

24. Tapio J., Pirtala, P. and Ernvall, T. (1995) The accident involvement and injury risk
rates of car models. Oulu: University of Oulu, Road and Transport Laboratory