Advances in Road Safety Evaluation

A special issue of Safety (ISSN 2313-576X).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (31 December 2015) | Viewed by 18995

Special Issue Editor


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Transportation Research Institute (IMOB), Hasselt University, Wetenschapspark 5 bus 6, B-3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium
Interests: road safety evaluation; driving behavior; road safety campaigns; driving simulation; driving assessment and training; fitness-to-drive

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Road safety evaluation is a systematic way to determine the effectiveness or expected outcome of different types of road safety interventions (e.g., engineering, education, enforcement). It can take place before the actual intervention is carried out (i.e., ex ante evaluation) to compare different intervention alternatives and estimate the expected outcomes of an intervention to prepare policy decisions. However, it can also occur after the intervention took place (i.e., ex post evaluation) in order to determine the observed effectiveness of the intervention. This special issue therefore welcomes contributions in both ex ante and ex post road safety evaluation, and looks for new techniques, methodologies, and applications to carry out such evaluations. We welcome both methodological contributions, as well as application-oriented papers, demonstrating the road safety evaluation process on a particular road safety intervention.

Relevant topics may include, but are not limited to: simulation, road safety prediction, observational before–after studies, road assessment programs (IRAP), road safety audit, risk modeling, proximal safety indicators, virtual reality, conflict observation, social cost-benefit analysis, multi-criteria decision making, time-series modeling, etc.

Prof. Dr. Tom Brijs
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Safety is an international peer-reviewed open access quarterly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1800 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • evaluation
  • road safety
  • road safety audits
  • IRAP
  • modeling
  • effectiveness
  • prediction
  • interventions

Published Papers (4 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review

2014 KiB  
Article
Safety Inspectorates and Safety Performance: A Tentative Analysis for Aviation and Rail in Norway
by Rune Elvik and Beate Elvebakk
Safety 2016, 2(2), 13; https://doi.org/10.3390/safety2020013 - 5 May 2016
Cited by 3 | Viewed by 3866
Abstract
Safety inspectorates have been established for all modes of transport in Norway. This paper explores whether establishing a safety inspectorate is related to safety performance. Long-term trends in safety in aviation and rail were compared before and after safety inspectorates were established for [...] Read more.
Safety inspectorates have been established for all modes of transport in Norway. This paper explores whether establishing a safety inspectorate is related to safety performance. Long-term trends in safety in aviation and rail were compared before and after safety inspectorates were established for these modes of transport. In aviation, there have been no passenger fatalities after the safety inspectorate was established. The number of (non-fatal) accidents in scheduled and charter flights has been between zero and five per year, which is higher than predicted according to the long-term trend in the period before the safety inspectorate was created. In rail, both the number of accidents and the number of passenger fatalities have been lower after the creation of the safety inspectorate than predicted according to long-term trends in the before-period. The paper shows statistical relationships indicating that safety performance has improved, at least in rail transport. A causal interpretation of these relationships is not possible on the basis of the analyses in this paper. Establishing safety inspectorates may improve transport safety, but showing this rigorously is extremely difficult. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Road Safety Evaluation)
Show Figures

Figure 1

213 KiB  
Article
An Engineering or Behavioural Approach? A Study into Employees’ Perceptions Regarding the Effectiveness of Occupational Road Safety Initiatives
by Tamara Banks, James Freeman and Jeremy Davey
Safety 2016, 2(1), 7; https://doi.org/10.3390/safety2010007 - 16 Mar 2016
Cited by 3 | Viewed by 4306
Abstract
Background and Aims: Considerable variation has been documented with fleet safety interventions’ abilities to create lasting behavioural change, and research has neglected to consider employees’ perceptions regarding the effectiveness of fleet interventions. This is a critical oversight as employees’ beliefs and acceptance levels [...] Read more.
Background and Aims: Considerable variation has been documented with fleet safety interventions’ abilities to create lasting behavioural change, and research has neglected to consider employees’ perceptions regarding the effectiveness of fleet interventions. This is a critical oversight as employees’ beliefs and acceptance levels (as well as the perceived organisational commitment to safety) can ultimately influence levels of effectiveness, and this study aimed to examine such perceptions in Australian fleet settings. Method: 679 employees sourced from four Australian organisations completed a safety climate questionnaire as well as provided perspectives about the effectiveness of 35 different safety initiatives. Results: Countermeasures that were perceived as most effective were a mix of human and engineering-based approaches: (a) purchasing safer vehicles; (b) investigating serious vehicle incidents; and (c) practical driver skills training. In contrast, least effective countermeasures were considered to be: (a) signing a promise card; (b) advertising a company’s phone number on the back of cars for complaints and compliments; and (c) communicating cost benefits of road safety to employees. No significant differences in employee perceptions were identified based on age, gender, employees’ self-reported crash involvement or employees’ self-reported traffic infringement history. Perceptions of safety climate were identified to be “moderate” but were not linked to self-reported crash or traffic infringement history. However, higher levels of safety climate were positively correlated with perceived effectiveness of some interventions. Conclusion: Taken together, employees believed occupational road safety risks could best be managed by the employer by implementing a combination of engineering and human resource initiatives to enhance road safety. This paper will further outline the key findings in regards to practice as well as provide direction for future research. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Road Safety Evaluation)
210 KiB  
Article
Safety Effects of Protected Left-Turn Phasing at Signalized Intersections: An Empirical Analysis
by Ellen De Pauw, Stijn Daniels, Stijn Van Herck and Geert Wets
Safety 2015, 1(1), 94-102; https://doi.org/10.3390/safety1010094 - 12 Dec 2015
Cited by 7 | Viewed by 3362
Abstract
Left-turn crashes occur frequently at signalized intersections and often lead to severe injuries. This problem can be addressed through the implementation of protected left-turn signals. This gives left-turning vehicles the right to enter the intersection free from conflict with opposing drivers and pedestrians. [...] Read more.
Left-turn crashes occur frequently at signalized intersections and often lead to severe injuries. This problem can be addressed through the implementation of protected left-turn signals. This gives left-turning vehicles the right to enter the intersection free from conflict with opposing drivers and pedestrians. The present study analyses the effect of this measure on crash occurrence. The study included 103 signalized intersections with left-turn signals in highways in Flanders, Belgium, of which 33 received only changes in the signal control and 70 also received additional changes. The effect on traffic safety is analyzed through an Empirical Bayesian before-and-after study on crashes, in which general trend effects and regression-to-the-mean are controlled. On the 33 intersections that received only changes in the signal control, the number of injury crashes decreased significantly (−46%, 95% CI (−36%; −55%)) during the after-period. This was mainly attributable to a decrease in left-turn crashes: −60%, 95% CI (−39%; −74%). The number of rear-end injury crashes did not change significantly after the implementation of a protected left-turn signal. A larger effect was identified for more severe crashes (involving serious injuries and fatalities) as compared with crashes resulting in lighter injuries: −66%, 95% CI (43%; −80%). Furthermore, the effect of left-turn phasing on the number of injured car occupants, cyclists, moped riders and motor cyclists was examined, and favorable effects were found for each of these groups. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Road Safety Evaluation)

Review

Jump to: Research

921 KiB  
Review
Conceptual and Methodological Issues in Evaluations of Road Safety Countermeasures
by Evelyn Vingilis
Safety 2016, 2(1), 8; https://doi.org/10.3390/safety2010008 - 18 Mar 2016
Cited by 5 | Viewed by 6003
Abstract
Researchers have a long history in the conduct of evaluations of road safety countermeasures. However, despite the strengths of some evaluative road safety evaluations that align with previous and current thinking on program evaluation, few published road safety evaluations have followed standard conceptualization [...] Read more.
Researchers have a long history in the conduct of evaluations of road safety countermeasures. However, despite the strengths of some evaluative road safety evaluations that align with previous and current thinking on program evaluation, few published road safety evaluations have followed standard conceptualization and methodology outlined in numerous program evaluation textbooks, journal articles and Web-based handbooks. However, conceptual and methodological challenges inherent in many evaluations of road safety countermeasures can affect causal attribution. Valid determination of causal attribution is enhanced by use of relevant theory or hypotheses on the putative mechanisms or pathways of change and by the use of a process evaluation to assess the actual implementation process. This article provides a detailed description of the constructs of causal chain, program logic models and process evaluation. This article provides an example of how these standard methods of theory-driven evaluation can improve the interpretation of outcomes and enhance causal attribution of a road safety countermeasure. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Road Safety Evaluation)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop