ESCAPE symposium 2 December, Brussels

1. ESCAPE symposium2 December, Brussels

2. - Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH), Greece - Bundesanstalt für Strassenwesen (BAST), Germany - Centrum Dopravního Vyzkumu S.A. (CDV), Czech Republic - Institut National de Recherche sur les Transports et leur Sécurité (INRETS), France - Institute for Road Safety Research (SWOV), the Netherlands - Institute of Transport Economics (TØI), Norway - Institute for Traffic Planning and Traffic Engineering (TUW-IVV), Austria - Kuratorium für Verkehrssicherheit (KFV), Austria - Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI), Sweden - Transport Research Foundation (TRL), United Kingdom - University of Groningen (RUG), the Netherlands - Coordinator: VTT Communities & Infrastructure, Finland CONSORTIUM

3. Marie-Berthe Biecheler-Fretel, INRETS Jean-Pierre Cauzard, INRETS Rainer Christ, KfV Rune Elvik, TÖI Christhard Gelau, BAST Charles Goldenbeld, SWOV, Jelle Heidstra, SWOV, Marie-Chantal Jayet INRETS, Veli-Pekka Kallberg, Coordinator, VTT Tapani Mäkinen, VTT Göran Nilsson, VTI Panos Papaioanou, AUTH Allan Quimby, TRL Vlasta Rehnova, CDV Truls Vaa, TÖI David M. Zaidel, VTT MAIN AUTHORS & COORDINATOR

4. Institute for Road Safety Research, SWOV, the Netherlands Technical Research Centre of Finland, VTT, Finland ORGANISERS OF THE SYMPOSIUMON BEHALF OF THE CONSORTIUM

5. ESCAPE FUNDED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION UNDER THE TRANSPORT RTD PROGRAMME OF THE 4TH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME Mrs. Carla deVries SUPPORT

6. "Motorists have shown from the beginning that they will not comply with any law which causes them inconvenience (such as the speed limit), or which, though easy to obey, they are not forced to obey (such as the regulation for number-plates). If that is to be their attitude, let us accept it for the time, and counter it by increased police activity, especially by the provision of more mobile police, until it is brought home to their minds that compliance with the law is their necessary contribution to the common weal." A quotation of Mr. Frank Elliott, The Times, January 1934

7. To identify important issues of traffic law enforcement in the EU To examine traditional and innovative enforcement approaches and tools To assess their potential to improve compliance 1 OBJECTIVES OF ESCAPE

8. What are the levels of non-compliance with traffic laws (WP2, WP5)? What is the contribution of non-compliance to accidents (WP2)? What new areas of non-compliance or enforcement issues emerged in Europe during the 1990s (WP1)? How is enforcement carried out in practice in different countries (WP1, WP3)? What are the constraints for efficient enforcement in different countries (WP3)? What role do non-police institutions and functions have in enforcement (WP3)? How can conventional enforcement be improved (WP1, WP3, WP4)? What alternatives to police enforcement are there (WP3)? What new tools and technologies for effective enforcement are there (WP4, WP1)? How will such tools be accepted by individuals, the public, and institutions in different countries (WP5)? What areas of enforcement, and using what tools, appear to be cost effective (WP1)? How should non-compliance and enforcement effectiveness be monitored and assessed (WP6)? 2 MAIN ISSUES ADDRESSED

9. First, what are the effects of traffic enforcement based on - subjective risk of detection 3 RESULTSWhat are the levels of non-compliance with traffic laws ? Effects of conventional and fixed camera enforcement on speeds

10. What are the levels of non-compliance … • A rule of thumb: the level of non-complience increases when travelling from North to South • Generally, the differences between and within countries are great • Drink driving limits best observed and low speed limits least observed • A rough average of about 3% of journeys are associated with an illegal BAC, but about 30% of injured drivers are under the influence of alcohol • Speeding: low posted limit > high non-compliance rate • 15% to over 50% of vehicles in EU traffic are travelling at least 15 km over the posted speed limit. • Use of safety belts: Best use rates on inter-urban roads 93 % - 95 % and lowest on rear seat rates about 50 % or less

11. What are the levels of non-compliance … Conclusion: Huge rates and/or high number of non-compliance in safety critical traffic behaviour in Europe. Currently there is no efficient way to address this issue.

12. What is the contribution of non-compliance to accidents ? • A single behavioural feature or single observation of driving does not predict accident involvement • A more comprehensive picture of a driver’s driving style is needed to predict accident involvement • Traffic violation history is associated with increased likelihood of getting involved in serious accidents • A driving record containing several punishments clearly signifies that the driver belongs to a risk group, and conventional measures may not be sufficient for improving his behaviour • a recorded traffic violation once in 3 years implies a significantly increased run-off-the-road accident risk • a record containing at least two drink driving convictions implies an increased accident risk

13. What is the contribution of non-compliance to accidents … • Speed is the most important single safety determinant in traffic behaviour • In the course of human evolution the mind and body have adapted to walking at the speed of about 3 to 5 km/h • Today, speeds of motorised traffic exceed the walking speed usually by 15 - 25 times • First speed limits for motor vehicles were introduced in France in 1899. Different limits were fixed for rural roads and urban areas 30 km/h and 20 km/h, respectively • Decrease in mean speed by 1 km/h will be followed by a casualty accident reduction by 2 - 3 % • Speeding creates other traffic violations Conclusion: Accident involvement may be predicted based on the past behaviour. Speed levels have direct link on accident rates.

14. What new areas of non-compliance or enforcement issues emerged in Europe during the 1990s ? • Drugs in traffic • Road rage • Cross-border traffic Conclusion: Drugs in traffic will be a pressing problem. There is currently no reliable and efficient way of adressing this problem. Also methods to identify problem vehicles/drivers in cross-border traffic is needed.

15. How is enforcement carried out in practice in different countries • First, the likelihood of being detected and sanctioned for a traffic law violation is very small in any European country • EU countries differ in their legal systems and present several ways of organising internal security and policing functions • EU countries have a similar range of sanctions imposed on offenders and a generally similar process of adjudication. Sanctions include fixed fines, driving licence suspension, and court procedures that may lead to fines, driving restrictions, suspension and prison terms. • In all countries, certain classes of violations, and all cases with injury accidents, must be referred to the courts and cannot be resolved by administrative actions of police or public prosecutors • Appeal venues are available to cited and prosecuted drivers in every country, but the systems operate under the practical assumption that the large majority of ticketed drivers accept the cost of the sanction and refrain from appealing

16. How is enforcement carried out … • The legal system of each country has found ways to streamline the processing of traffic violations and to substantially reduce the load on the courts. • In some countries the decision has been made to decriminalise typical traffic offences and consider them as civil misdemeanours subject to fines • But even countries that retained the criminal status of traffic violations have adopted measures such as fixed fines or having a default whereby the driver is assumed to have admitted guilt unless requesting a trial. • Many have introduced various special consequences other than fines to non-compliance with traffic law, as well as designing special mechanisms for their application. Driving licence suspension, mandatory medical and psychological tests, re-licensing requirements, rehabilitation programmes, remedial courses, community work • Regarding policing, a mix of organisational police structures can be seen in EU countries. Often there are dedicated traffic units within police forces

17. How is enforcement carried out … • The degree of centralisation of command and control, the level of autonomy of local forces, and the degree of personal specialisation in traffic control, vary from country to country and within regions and police forces within a country • Common to all police forces in Europe: all countries lack both compiled and structured information on the extent of their traffic-related activities making truly data led operations difficult Conclusion: Even though enforcement systems have many similiarities within European countries, the ways they function and sanctions are applied, are very different.

18. What are the constraints for efficient enforcement in different countries • Legal systems still lag behind the fast technological development that would enable implementation of new enforcement methods. For example, automated detection of speeding and other violations still creates a bottleneck in several countries, since the issue of owner liability has not been satisfactorily solved • Another example is the use of alcohol interlock systems, which requires legislative changes even to make the installation and experimentation possible • Resources for enforcement are scant and have not followed the growth of traffic volumes as suggested by European Conference of Ministers of Transport as early as 1975 • Traffic police does not have sufficiently high esteem within the police forces • Politicians are not really committed to traffic safety work

19. What are the constraints for efficient enforcement … Conclusion: The constraints for efficient enforcement are on in legislation to keep up with the fast development of technology, one hand and resources and attitudes of different players in the field, on the other hand.

20. What role do non-police institutions and functions have in enforcement • Enforcement of traffic laws carried out by institutions other than the police can be called “non-police based” enforcement • The enforcement activities can for instance be fully government-controlled, performed by a completely privatised, commercial organisation or be a public-private conjunction • Examples of these non-police enforcement tasks were speed enforcement by local authorities (Germany), driver improvement measures conducted by specialised governmental authorities (France), periodical vehicle inspections by private companies (Finland), and fiscal and administrative enforcement of parking by local authorities (the Netherlands and some other countries) • One example to be discussed: camera based enforcement: How much is the police needed in that?

21. What role do non-police institutions and functions have … Conclusion: A lot of traffic policing is routine type of work - especially the use of automated technologies - that needs to be assessed whether it can be carried out by organisations/bodies other than the police, or can the work be shared.

22. How can conventional enforcement be improved • Increase subjective risk of detection • Improve sanction systems • Selective enforcement • Rehabilitation programmes • Demerit point systems • Concentrate on essential areas only such as speeds, drink driving and use of seat belts • Use mass media to support enforcement • Data led operations based on monitoring systems • More effective use of information technologies (IT)

23. How can conventional enforcement … Conclusion: In all enforcement the key issue is how to increase the subjective risk of detection / perceived probability of getting caught for violations

24. What alternatives to police enforcement are there • Today, alternative methods to enforcement do exist • Several support technologies already available - Electronic tachographs - Use of in-vehicle data (vehicle control computers, GPS) - Electronic driving licence - Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA) - Alcohol interlocks - Automated road side enforcement methods • Tomorrow: Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) for vehicle lateral and longitudinal control - Obstacle detection warning systems, - Lane departure warning systems - Driver monitoring systems - Improved vehicle control by means of intelligent tyre technologies

25. What alternatives to police enforcement … Conclusion: Today there are a number of especially, in-vehicle technologies that can be used for enforcement. The reasons for not adopting them are above all political. In the future, it is possible that traffic enforcement as it is now, may not be needed.

26. Public opinion • Results mainly based on SARTE survey reanalysis • Wide-spread support for exisiting legislation among European road users • the majority of drivers favour similar legal requirements across countries, the preferred standard often being the one in their own countries • There is strong public support for more police enforcement of traffic regulations. The level of general support ranges from 60% to 80% across the EU countries

27. Public opinion … • 22% of respondents in the SARTRE survey supported current levels of sanctions, and 56% were in favour of more severe penalties for traffic violations in their countries. Support of sanctions by country varied from 44% to 74%, with no clear relation to existing severity levels Conclusion: There is wide public support for more effective enforcement among road users

28. Recommendations for the future • There are proven best practises in enforcement area. Disseminate these practises throughout Europe • Traffic safety work including enforcement is a "low-tech" area. Use modern technology more actively to support enforcement • Explore possibilites to remove routine work such as operation of automatic enforcement from the police to other bodies/organisations • Make enforcement data led and use & structure more extensively information from enforcement and the way road infrastructure is used. Develop sufficiently detailed monitoring systems for enforcement • Traffic safety work should be more integrated in terms of different players. Maybe, too much is expected from the police. Road infrastructure provides ample possibilites for mistakes subject to enforcement

29. Recommendations … Conclusions: 1) Increase the subjective risk of detection 2) Use new technologies 3) Operations data led: monitor your own activities

30. More integration in traffic safety work • Too much is expected from the police today • Traffic safety system is designed in the way giving us ample possibilites for driver errors and violations of road traffic laws • Road and traffic environment desing should support police work by minimising errors leading to the need of enforcement