Charlotte Bax's research while affiliated with SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research and other places
What is this page?
This page lists the scientific contributions of an author, who either does not have a ResearchGate profile, or has not yet added these contributions to their profile.
It was automatically created by ResearchGate to create a record of this author's body of work. We create such pages to advance our goal of creating and maintaining the most comprehensive scientific repository possible. In doing so, we process publicly available (personal) data relating to the author as a member of the scientific community.
If you're a ResearchGate member, you can follow this page to keep up with this author's work.
If you are this author, and you don't want us to display this page anymore, please let us know.
This chapter presents the analysis of a road safety management framework in European countries and the identification of “good practice” for the optimization of road safety management processes, carried out within the DaCoTA research project. It then discusses the road safety management investigation model, and describes the data collection and handling procedures. Effective organization of road safety management is assumed to be one of the conditions for obtaining good road safety results at the country level. Country profiles of the road safety management systems in the 14 European countries were analyzed and compared to the reference “good practice” system. Road safety visions and targets appear to be strongly influenced by either European Union proposals or road safety “leader” countries in Europe. Almost all European countries have road safety strategies and programs, with the majority boasting the ambitious EU targets.
The work package 1 of the EC FP7 project DaCoTA investigates road safety management processes in Europe. It has drafted a model to investigate the state of the art of road safety policy-making and management at the national level and to define "good practice". The DaCoTA "good practice" investigation model recommends no "one-best-way" solutions, either for attaining a particular objective or for organizing the road safety sector, as the national context always needs to be taken in account when determining policies with consequences in terms of road safety or when modelling road safety management processes. The model is put to test and will be enhanced through a campaign of face-to-face interviews with road safety experts and policy-makers, carried out in 2011. By December 2012 several case studies illustrating "good practice" will be made available to policy-makers, road safety experts and the public through the ERSO web site. (C) 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer review under responsibility of the Programme Committee of the Transport Research Arena 2012
The aim of the DaCoTA Work Package 1 is to investigate road safety policy-making and management processes in Europe. In the Deliverables released previously, the Work Package 1 assessed the experts' needs in terms of road safety knowledge, data and decision support tools (Deliverable 1.1/4.1), as well as the road safety stakeholders' views (Deliverable 1.3). These two Deliverables contain information on the present and future needs and the actual availability of various types of road safety data and knowledge, which the experts and the stakeholders might find useful for their work. As for the Deliverable 1.2 at hand; it presents the theoretical background for the Work Package 1 'investigation model', as well as the model itself and the questionnaire derived from it. The 'investigation model' was designed for the study of the different aspects of actual road safety policy-making and management processes in Europe. Its objective is to allow describing concrete road safety policy-making and management practices. Therefore, it is not a 'good practice' model in the normative sense. Rather, it aims at discovering good practices that exist, whether they conform to a normative 'good practice' model designed by experts or not. In designing the investigation model, the group relied on an extensive review of recent literature. Some of the references the group reviewed contain only a small number of case studies. A number of these are limited to well performing developed countries and nevertheless prescribe the implementation of similar structures for road safety decision-making and management in quite different situations and contexts. A few other references, however, advocate a more analytical approach, backing their claim with case studies from a more varied set of countries. In any case, the group decided to draw on elements from all available models, thus ensuring that while the investigation model is now used to study road safety policymaking and management processes in European countries, its use is by no means restricted to Europe or to the developed countries. The investigation model inquires of course about the actors, processes and components of road safety management that can all probably, but not necessarily, be found in well-performing countries, and that quite certainly cannot all be found elsewhere. The results to the questionnaire will allow a first assessment of the idea that a good road safety record is necessarily linked to certain components of road safety management system. Road safety management, understood as an area of public action destined to reduce road un-safety, includes policy-making tasks and transversal processes, as well as the organisation necessary for these tasks and processes to take place. Policymaking tasks form a cycle, going from agenda setting to policy formulation, then to policy adaption, implementation and finally evaluation, before the cycle begins again-and there are of course feedback loops going from evaluation to policy formulation and implementation stages. In order to accomplish these policy-making tasks, some management processes are necessary. The group has identified four such processes. As road safety policymaking is an inter-sectoral activity (i.e. it involves several sectors of governmental action) there is a need for inter-sectoral coordination. Likewise, the diversity of actors involved in road safety call for the involvement of stakeholders. Knowledge must be produced and used to justify the need for a road safety policy and the priority status given to it, as well as to identify available options and arbitrate between them. Finally, there must be a process for capacity building. A road safety management system can function if the institutional and organisational arrangements are adequate; if Road safety management investigation model and questionnaire DaCoTA_WP1_D1.2_final_2011-09-21 5 responsibilities are allocated along with sufficient resources; if knowledge transfers between different positions and between generations are effective. Furthermore, there are two immaterial ingredients in an operative road safety management system, that may precede it to some extent, but which are also outputs of the system: the political will and the road safety culture. The model was then used for formulating a series of 69 questions, which assess the different aspects of a road safety management system. After eliminating redundancies, the finalised questionnaire contains 50 closed questions as well as some room for comments from the interviewees. The questionnaires will be used for collecting data from policy-makers and road safety experts in at least 13 European countries in the summer and autumn 2011. ; RAPPORT DE CONTRAT
The aim of DaCoTA's Work Package 1 is to shed light on road safety policy-making and management processes in Europe and to explore how these can be better supported by data and knowledge. This was done by assessing demands and views of stakeholders as well as by building a good practice model for road safety management investigation. Future versions of the European Road Safety Observatory (ERSO, www.erso.eu) are envisaged to be built on the findings of this project. This report describes the methodology and presents the first aggregated results of an on-line stakeholder consultation carried out in Task 1.3. The survey was successfully carried out among more than 3000 road safety stakeholders in Europe and beyond. The assessment was conducted along four dimensions of road safety management: Fact finding, Road safety programme development, Preparing implementation, and Monitoring and evaluation. The questionnaire was built on the results of an expert panel consultation carried out earlier in the project and was dedicated to bring in the viewpoints of stakeholders who may not be directly involved in decision-making. Circa 3150 stakeholder contacts were collected from the European Commission, the ETSC (European Transport Safety Council) as well as its PIN Panel members and the FERSI (Forum of European Road Safety Research Institutes). The questionnaire was launched in February 2011 and open for one month, resulting in a satisfactory response rate of more than 16%. Response rates were specifically high for national statistics bureaus, research institutes and consultancies. Also the health sector and associations / interest groups / European (umbrella) organisations responded at above-average rates. Stakeholders expressed significant demand for data and knowledge in road safety-related decision making. They also expressed discontent about the current poor availability of such information. The following issues scored highest with regard to priority for road safety work: ; RAPPORT DE CONTRAT
In the early 1990s, in order to improve road safety in The Netherlands, the Institute for Road Safety Research (SWOV) developed an evidence-based "Sustainable Safety" concept. Based on this concept, Dutch road safety policy, was seen as successful and as a best practice in Europe. In The Netherlands, the policy context has now changed from a sectoral policy setting towards a fragmented network in which safety is a facet of other transport-related policies. In this contribution, it is argued that the implementation strategy underlying Sustainable Safety should be aligned with the changed context. In order to explore the adjustments needed, two perspectives of policy implementation are discussed: (1) national evidence-based policies with sectoral implementation; and (2) decentralized negotiation on transport policy in which road safety is but one aspect. We argue that the latter approach matches the characteristics of the newly evolved policy context best, and conclude with recommendations for reformulating the implementation strategy.
Statements about economic cost-benefit analysis were assessed in a sample of European road safety decision-makers. These statements related to both principles of cost-benefit analysis and implications for applying the method to road safety projects. A procedure of information reference testing was applied, under the assumption of identifying knowledge and possible misconceptions about the method. Homogeneity and ordinal logit analyses indicated that a high sum-score correlated with economist background, while a low sum-score correlated significantly with negative attitudes towards assessing road safety policy by cost-benefit analysis. However, the sum-score from the statements cannot be regarded as an unequivocal measure of knowledge, and the responses may indicate a boundary dispute about economics as scientific knowledge versus economics as a policy tool.
Previous research has found that the priority given to road safety measures is not based on the results of economic analyses,
in particular cost–benefit analysis. This paper tries to identify some reasons for this fact. Knowledge utilisation theory
is applied as a framework for identifying barriers. A typology of barriers to the use of economic efficiency analyses in road
safety policy is developed. The presence of the barriers is investigated empirically by means of interviews of 83 road safety
decision-makers in various European countries. Various technical barriers, particularly a lack of knowledge of the effects
of road safety measures, are found. Based on a multivariate correspondence analysis (HOMALS), respondents can be placed in
two groups with respect to the barriers they regard as most important. One group regards ethical objections to cost–benefit
analyses as important, the other group but regards a large group of other barriers as important.
This study examines the administrative processes that led to the implementation of road safety measures in Dutch Regional Traffic and Transport Plans. The design of the study is a multiple case study in six regions in the Netherlands. We evaluate the road safety policy by looking at the effectiveness, the efficiency, and the level of ambition of the measures. The study concludes that involving many parties in the decision-making process and entering into early negotiation with opponents of measures is associated with a decisive policy. Delegating the organization to an external party and actively involving support groups for road safety measures does the same.RésuméLa présente étude examine les processus administratifs qui ont conduit à la mise en application des mesures de sécurité routière dans les Dutch Regional Traffic and Transport Plans. L'étude fait partie de six études de cas effectuées dans six régions néerlandaises. Elle évalue la politique de sécurité routière en analysant l'efficacité du niveau d'ambition des mesures concernées. Nous arrivons à la conclusion que pour parvenir à une politique concluante, il importe d'impliquer les différentes parties dans la prise de décisions et d'ouvrir, dès le début, des négociations avec les adversaires des mesures proposées. Il est également nécessaire de confier l'organisation à un tiers et d'impliquer activement les groupes des soutien des mesures des sécurité routière.
... In the United States, the state government establishes road-safety policies, is responsible for safety management such as regulations, and implements post-improvement measures in a continuous manner [9][10][11]. In recent years, there have been many cases of utilizing road traffic-safety-management systems as suggested in ISO 39001 [12][13][14]. To implement road traffic-safety-management systems, it is necessary to establish a performance index that considers the government's perspective on road traffic safety and the systemmanagement perspective [15]. ...
... It is likely that on a national scale, other factors, including political will influences the links between evidence and resultant policy. Muhlrad et al. (2011) argued that the limits of safety performance are related to the capacity of the road safety system in a country and therefore its ability to implement effective interventions. ETSC (2006) also suggested evidence in support of this statement. ...
... The evolution of the idea of a road safety level assessment rate on territory has been transformed into two phases. Phase 1 encompasses the authors who made the calculations for the composite index based on indicators for only one layer (Jameel & Evdorides, 2021;Pires et al., 2020;Tešić et al., 2018;Bax et al., 2012;Shen et al., 2011;Hermans, 2009;Al-Haji, 2007 and etc.). Phase 2 gathers together the authors who calculated their composite index based on indicators of various layers (Babaee, 2022;Babaee et al., 2021;Chen et al., 2022Chen et al., , 2016Hermans et al., 2010;Gitelman et al., 2010;Wegman and Oppe (2010);Wegman et al., 2008Wegman et al., , 2005etc.). ...
... It also emphasises the need for robust road safety management structures. Dupont et al (2012) undertook a survey of 79 experts who were considered to work in the intersect between evidence generation and policy making, to establish needs for evidence-based policy making in Europe. The key findings were that there is a need to see the value of knowledge, data and tools and that this can be lacking and there is a need for key road safety management structures, ideally with coordination by a single dedicated organisation. ...
... This paper presents a longitudinal and lateral control strategy of CAVs for lane-changing maneuver with the following objectives: (1) Consider the nonlinearity of vehicle dynamics and formulate a constraint-following control problem to design the lane-changing strategy. (2) Generate an acceptable lane-changing space through multi-vehicle coordinated control, which is then filled by the merging vehicle through path tracking, thereby achieving a smooth and safe lane-changing process under high traffic flow condition. (3) Impose a longitudinal and lateral safety corridor defined by inequality constraints to ensure a safety-guaranteed lane-changing maneuver for CAVs. ...
... The first was a lack of awareness of the technology or its potential benefits, which could include misunderstandings about the associated costs and benefits [24]. The second issue was that the technologies were not profitable, given the complicated decisions that farmers have to make about how to distribute land and labor between agricultural and nonagricultural enterprises [25]. ...
... Premièrement, alors qu'il est généralement recommandé d'entamer le plus en amont possible des négociations avec les parties prenantes du système pour parvenir à une politique concluante (cf. Bax, 2005), près du tiers des décideurs n'initie pas d'activités diplomatiques auprès de celles-ci. Deuxièmement, même si tous les décideurs ne semblent pas être enclins à utiliser des heuristiques décisionnelles, l'appui sur des cas décisionnels similaires expérimentés dans le passé est pourtant généralement jugé particulièrement utile (cf. ...
... Therefore, valid and sufficient data should be collected and analyzed to increase awareness and attention of the community and policy makers of the country to the traffic field. 3 Traffic injury data play an important role in identifying trends, groups and places of high risk, identifying risk factors for road crash and injuries, designing interventions and effective strategies, facilitating decision making for policy makers in this area, monitoring and evaluating programs in line with the goals. 4,5 The data are gathered and recorded in many countries but they should be up to date and valid to be applied in roads safety improvement system. ...
... Sustainable road network safety assumes that prevention is better than mitigation of consequences, and is based on the following principles [10]: ...
... When sustainability is pursued, is it to sustain the Earth or a town? When discussing the overall sustainability of the Earth, there are many diverse focuses in literature: (1) all of TBL (Crosby, 2010;Dunlop & Russel, 2012;Fiorino, 2010;Loorbach, 2010); (2) environmental sustainability (Dinica, 2018;Dumay et al., 2010;Dyck & Silvestre, 2019;Feiock et al., 2017); and (3) social sustainability (Amis et al., 2017;Bax et al., 2010;Broadbent et al., 2010;Hoopes & Treglia, 2019). ...
