Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Road Safety Outcomes Management Martin Small LTSA Manager Safety Strategy 4 October 2001 Outline A Pathfinder checklist Building Blocks Safety Directions Crash Analysis System Managing Performance Road Safety Strategy 2010 A Pathfinder Checklist Define and measure ‘mission critical’ outcomes National Road Safety Plan 1991, and 1995 Rail Safety – being developed Define logic linking outcomes to outputs Dose response relationships for key policy and resource interventions Assess impact of discretionary interventions 2010 Target Setting Model A Pathfinder Checklist (cont) Evaluate cost-effectiveness of interventions Ex ante evaluation of new Rules Ex post evaluation of higher level projects Underpinned by Value of Statistical Life Define prioritisation systems to maximise outcomes from intervention resource Top down resource allocation model Bottom up prioritisation through Risk Targeted Patrol Plan A Pathfinder Checklist (cont) Benchmark the performance of business units/nations in achieving outcomes Development of Control Charts International peer review of performance management frameworks Monitoring and comparing performance against national outcome targets Focus strategic and annual plans on improving ‘mission critical’ outcomes Redesign planning and operational systems to achieve enhanced outcomes Building Blocks Crash Analysis System Combining crash, road, environment, vehicle and user data Integrated spatial analysis and accident investigation tools Safety Directions Development Programme Started 1996 Driven from “safety at reasonable cost” mandate Focussing on Safety Funding Cycle Safety funding cycle Budget setting Target setting Data sources Performance monitoring Budget allocation Safety outcome Budgeting to achieve a target ‘Funding gap’ At current efficiency Target outcome The safety outcome depends on the resources we put in. Expected outcome With improved efficiency If resources are insufficient we must either (1) make up the ‘funding gap’ or (2) improve efficiency. Current resource Resource required to achieve target Safety resources Cumulative traffic volume or social cost (%) Targeting the safety budget 100% 90% 20% of roads account for 79% of traffic and 87% of social cost of crashes 80% 70% 10% of roads account for 56% of traffic and 74% of social cost of crashes 60% 50% 40% Social cost of crashes Traffic volume 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% Cumulative road length (%) 80% 100% Spatial units for resource allocation modelling Points suit interventions that act at discrete locations, eg intersection treatments. Segments suit interventions that act over stretches of road, eg audible edge markings. Areas suit interventions that act over entire parts of the network, eg enforcement. Performance monitoring tools Control charts allow us to avoid false alarms and to direct our effort where it is really needed. Control charts can be devised for specific interventions or specific areas of the country; and may be expressed in terms of crashes, fatalities or social cost. Cumulative Control Chart Fatalities 2001: Max 420 Upper 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 420 374 327 Actual Lowe r Expected 0 20 40 Week 60 A predictive model Traffic growth etc. Current outcome Baseline outcome Amount of intervention Doseresponse Parameters 20 interventions Predicted outcome Aggregated results Managing Performance Critical risk behaviours Strategic enforcement Advertising support Performance management framework The effect of blood alcohol on relative risk of a fatal crash 20 Relative risk of fatal crash 18 L egal limit for age 16 to 19 16 Legal limit for age over 20 14 12 10 8 6 Age 16 to 19 Age over 20 4 2 0 0 40 80 Blood alcohol level (mg/100mL) 120 The effect of speed on crash risk Relative risk (100 km/h = 1.0) 3.0 2.5 All injury crashes Fatal and serious crashes Fatal crashes 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 80 90 100 110 Mean speed (km/h) 120 130 Traffic enforcement hours 37% Alcohol, speed and restraints Alcohol, speed and restraints Other 55% 45% Other 63% 1994/95 1.78M hours 1998/99 1.99M hours Strategic hours are now a bigger slice of a bigger pie Alcohol, speed and seatbelt changes, 1995 to 2000 (fatal and serious injury crashes) 785 631 446 425 14% 8% alcohol crashes speed crashes non-use of seatbelts Safety belts: enforcement levels and wearing rates 40000 20000 enforcement: number of offence notices issued each year 0 60% percentage of rear seat adults NOT wearing seatbelts 40% percentage of front seat adults NOT wearing seatbelts 20% Mar-01 Sep-00 Mar-00 Sep-99 Mar-99 Sep-98 Mar-98 Sep-97 Mar-97 Sep-96 Mar-96 0% Alcohol CBT checks and Offence Notices 30000 Alcohol offence notices issued each year 20000 10000 CBT stops x 100 0 Drink-driving crashes 2000 All reported injury and fatal crashes involving alcohol 1000 Jun-01 Dec-00 Jun-00 Dec-99 Jun-99 Dec-98 Jun-98 Dec-97 Jun-97 Dec-96 Jun-96 0 Speeding Infringements Issued 800,000 Total 600,000 400,000 Camera 200,000 Other 0 30% Vehicles exceeding 110 km/h 25% 20% 15% 10% Percentage exceeding 110 km/h Performance monitoring tools Advertising is not desired for itself but for its effect. The ‘adstock’ model is a tool to monitor advertising recall. Targets Implementation Design and operation of the network Interventions The road environment Standards and Rules Conditions of entry and exit The vehicle The road user Compliance Standards and Rules Compliance Standards and Rules Education Education Education Enforcement Enforcement Enforcement Performance assessment Performance assessment Performance assessment Compliance Final outcomes consist of fatalities and serious injuries. They are what we seek to avoid and are the main components of social cost. Social cost is the aggregate measure of all costs that crashes inflict on the community. It includes not just material losses but pain and suffering. Social cost and final outcomes (but not intermediate outcomes and outputs) can be broken down by road user group and local government region. Intermediate outcomes are not desired for themselves but for what they entail—better final outcomes. We could have separate targets for different road user groups . Outputs represent physical deliverables, for instance the number of police patrols and the amount of advertising delivered. Alternatively they could correspond to milestones showing that a specified task has been complet ed. We could develop individual targets for New Zealand’s local government regions each made up of a number of local authorities.