Road Safety Report Card for the CAREC Region

Approach and Methodology

Approach

Road safety performance and context can vary significantly between countries resulting in large differences in serious injury rates and characteristics, especially between high-income countries (HIC) and low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). In addition, it is easy to find significant local, regional, and national dissimilarities in road infrastructure, road user behavior, vehicle types and safety standards, levels of law enforcement, and speed limits.

While this variation helps explain differences in the overall safety performance between countries, it has commonly and incorrectly been used to dismiss the generalizability of proven road safety solutions, especially from HICs to LMICs.⁴ Most fundamental and universally applicable to road safety are the laws of physics, which determine the human biomechanical tolerance to crash forces and the relationship between injury risk and speed.

In developing road safety initiatives, policies, and programs it is imperative to accept evidence from elsewhere while simultaneously using local knowledge to prioritize interventions to most effectively address local road safety challenges.

The creation of a forgiving road transport system where road user errors do not result in serious injuries or death is the main objective of the Safe System approach to road safety. It was conceptualized in Sweden through the policy innovation of Vision Zero, an ethical imperative that fatalities and serious injuries are not an acceptable cost of transportation.⁵

The Safe System approach puts a focus on critical elements that together can create a system where crash forces are kept below human tolerance levels. While safe roads, safe vehicles, safe road use, and safe speeds are most commonly considered to constitute the main pillars of the Safe System, institutional capacity and road safety management and post-crash care are now seen as equally essential to deliver good road safety performance. As the Safe System approach has proven to be more effective in reducing road fatalities and injuries, this report uses the framework of the critical elements to structure the assessment, including the following information where data is available:

Pillar 1: Road Safety Management

•   Determination of the road safety management and government structures in place.

•   Institutional arrangements for road safety including availability, funding, and effectiveness of lead agencies.

•   Identification of key road safety stakeholders and determination of the extent of their involvement in the implementation of road safety initiatives, including civil society organizations.

•   Consultations to determine key stakeholder challenges and priorities, and general awareness and qualifications of public servants.

•   Funding requirements and commitments for road safety, including projects and activities supported by ADB and other development organizations of all ongoing and recently completed projects incorporating road safety.

•   Review of the availability and quality of road safety data including the effectiveness of data sharing arrangements among stakeholder countries.

Pillar 2: Safer Roads

•   Road planning and design practices, including the extent of implementation of road safety audits.

•   Appropriateness and implementation of national and regional road design standards to address road safety.

•   Resources and capacity for implementing road safety remedial measures.

•   Scope of International Road Assessment Programme (iRAP) assessments or other road safety assessment programs and how outputs are being used to improve road safety.

•   Stakeholder views relating to safer roads, real or perceived barriers to improving road safety, and attitudes.

Pillar 3: Safer Vehicles

•   Assessment of key regulations in place for vehicle inspection and maintenance, safety feature requirements, and standards.

•   Assessment of key issues such as heavy vehicle overloading.

Pillar 4: Safer Road Users

•   Assessment of road safety related legislation and its enforcement.

•   Consultations with traffic police and other stakeholders related to road safety enforcement, what is being done to improve safety issues, and the nature of assistance or capacity development required.

•   Determination of the level of understanding of general and specific deterrence principles.

•   Assessment of driver licensing and training and any real or perceived issues or gaps.

•   Assessment of consideration of vulnerable road users in traffic planning and in stakeholder views and understanding related to road safety issues.

•   Assessment of road safety education and campaigns undertaken in the countries, and a high-level assessment of the understanding of road user risk.

Pillar 5: Post-Crash Care

•   The availability of first responder services, and average response time.

•   Key stakeholder priorities and needs related to health and emergency care services and response.

Methodology

To accurately investigate all areas, a comprehensive road safety capacity review is required for each country, something that was not within the scope of this report but which is reflected in the level of detail in the results.

Information to populate a knowledge product and a literature overview and information scan have been acquired through consultations with CAREC National Focal Points (NFPs) in each country, interviews with key stakeholders, assessments of documents and information provided by key country contacts including national road safety policies, targets and action plans, and country data.

The steps involved in gathering information were to (i) introduce the team by letter to the CAREC NFPs, (ii) send out questionnaires relating to the delivery of the action plan and assessment forms relating to road safety capacity, (iii) undertake interviews with key contacts and stakeholders in each country, (iv) review and compare with best practice and case studies, and (v) sort and compile the material.

Results

Information Obtained from Each Country

The NFPs for each country were contacted via email from ADB personnel to inform them about the project aims and purpose together with a report card questionnaire.

This questionnaire included the country-specific commitments under the CAREC Road Safety Strategy, as listed in the action plan document, instructions for the NFP to fill in what had been acted on, and references to any outputs and documentation in relation to the actions. In addition to the questionnaire was an introduction to the project team and a note saying they would be contacted to provide further information.

Following the introductory email and questionnaire, the project team contacted the NFPs to schedule a time for an interview to discuss the CAREC Road Safety Strategy and actions. For some countries, additional signed letters of request were sent from ADB to the relevant ministry to seek approval to conduct the interviews.

Out of the 11 CAREC countries, six NFPs agreed to the interview. Interviews were undertaken between January and May in 2021. In the interview process, an assessment form was used as an interview template covering the areas of Road Safety Management, Safer Roads, Safer Vehicles, Safer Road Users, and Road Policing. The NFP was also asked to add to the forms any relevant information on their