Childhood Road Safety - Safe Communities Portugal
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Childhood Road Safety
· Road traffic injuries (RTIs) are a major but of road traffic collisions and report more
neglected public health problem requiring continuing health problems that require
concerted multi-sectoral efforts for effec- more assistance7.
tive and sustainable prevention. Every
year in Europe around 127,000 people are · Fatalities and injuries to children under 10
killed and at least 2.4 million people are years of age remain high and these casu-
injured in road traffic accidents1,2. Road alties occur because nearly half of the
traffic injuries are the leading cause of children in this age group generally travel
death and severe injuries3 among children in automobiles unrestrained. Although
aged 0–14 years4 and are the cause for current data are limited, it is estimated that
34% of child injury deaths annually. approximately 150 lives could be saved,
annually, if those children who are not
· This includes pedestrians, cyclists and using child restraints are restrained with
motor vehicle passengers. An estimated lap/shoulder belts. Furthermore, if all
200,000 families per year suffer from the those children who are ready for booster
death or lifelong disability of at least one seats used them and lap/shoulder belts,
family member due to a road traffic injury5 an additional 19 lives could be saved
in the European Union (EU). every year8.
· EU Member States are performing very · For children 0 to 14 years pedestrian and
differently in regards children’s road bicycling deaths and injuries contribute as
safety. This explains why there is a 3 a major factor risk factor, whereas youth
times greater risk of a child dying due to a 15 to 19 years have greater use of motor-
road traffic injury in Lithuania, Estonia and ised vehicles and therefore greater risks to
Latvia than the best performing countries deaths and injuries from these causes.
in Europe, such as Sweden, the Nether- ( Fig. 4-7)
lands and the UK4. (Fig.1)
· Child safety seats and safety belts, when
· Youth 15 to 19 years is composed of installed and used correctly, can prevent
young drivers and co-drivers being the injuries and save lives. Rear-facing car
group at most risk. The risk increases seats reduce injuries up to 90-95% and
steadily with the age as the active partici- forward facing car seats up to 60%6.
pation of children and youth in traffic Unrestrained children are more likely to be
increases. In the age group of 15 to 19 injured, suffer severe injuries and die in
years, 75% of the fatalities due to road motor vehicle crashes than children who
traffic injuries are male. The proportion of are restrained.
boys killed increases steadily with the age.
(Fig. 2) · The need of the parents to know the most
suitable restraint system, how to fit the
· The proportion of fatal road accidents on system correctly to the car and the willing-
all causes mortality tends to be higher in ness or financial possibility to spend
high-income countries because in low money to buy/renew the child restraint in
income-countries injury mortality due to time should be perceived as standard
other causes (like drowning) is more behaviour9.
prevalent. Approximately 45% of all fatali-
ties caused by injuries are road traffic · Incorrect use of child safety seats is
injuries in the age group 0-19 years. widespread. Although 96 percent of par-
They represent nearly 13% of all fatalities ents believe they install and use their child
in this age group in the EU27. (Fig. 3) safety seats correctly, it is estimated that
80 percent of child safety seats are not
· Children are particularly vulnerable until installed and used correctly10.
the age of 9–10 years, owing to their weak
capacity to concentrate attention on traffic. · Driver safety belt use is positively associ-
They are considered to be especially ated with child restraint use. In a recent
vulnerable when motorised traffic is heavy study nearly 40 percent of children riding
or fast, visibility is limited or drivers’ atten- with unbelted drivers were completely
tion is diverted6. unrestrained, compared with only 5 per-
cent of children riding with belted drivers11.
· Child pedestrians and cyclists usually
suffer the most severe injuries as a result· Child restraint use decreases as both the
age of the child and the blood alcohol · Toddlers (ages 1 to 2) sustain the highest
level of the child’s driver increase5. number of pedestrian injuries, primarily
due to their small size and limited traffic
· Children are up to 29 percent safer riding experience. More than half of all toddler
in the back seat versus the front seat12. pedestrian injuries occur when a vehicle is
backing up16.
· Very positive results have derived from
the implementation of rental or loan pro- · Children living in homes with shared
grammes for infant seats allowing parents driveways are at significantly increased
all over Sweden, Finland, Germany or the risk for driveway-related injuries. A fenced
UK to save money and make changes play area, physically separated from
when appropriate for a low fee (or even residential driveways, could reduce the
without any cost)9. risk of driveway-related incidents by 50
percent17.
· Speed cameras have been shown to have
a positive cost-benefit of around 4:1. In Prevention Effectiveness
the United Kingdom the benefits to society
from the avoided injuries due to speed · There is evidence that more lives could be
cameras were in excess of £221 million saved on roads throughout Europe if the
compared to enforcement costs of around following strategies were implemented,
£54 million. Furthermore there is public taught to the public and enforced:
support for the use of safety cameras for
targeted enforcement as illustrated by the · Reduced speed limit zones – are effec-
Three-year evaluation report of the na- tive in reducing both traffic speed and
tional safety camera programme, pub- accidents, a major risk factor that influ-
lished in June 2004. ences the severity of pedestrian injuries.
In the UK introduction of 30 km/h speed
· Airbags pose a risk to children. Children limit zones resulted in local reductions of
sat in rearward facing seats are closer to 48% in child road accidents involving
the airbag and are especially in danger of cyclists and a reduction of 70% in fatal
being fatally injured if the airbag goes off, child road accidents involving pedestri-
and in some countries it is illegal to put a ans18.
rearward facing child seat in the front
where there is an active frontal passenger · Traffic calming – comprehensive area
airbag.13 wide traffic calming measures
(constructing urban throughpasses,
· In addition to physical trauma, motor enlarging existing pedestrian areas,
vehicle injuries can have long-lasting improving the network of cycling facilities,
psychological effects. One study showed constructing roundabouts, implementing
that 25 percent of children who suffered 30 km/h zones, and strictly enforcing
from traffic injuries and 15 percent of their traffic rules) have shown a 60% reduction
parents were diagnosed with post- in casualties from road accidents19. Fur-
traumatic stress disorder14. thermore, parents have been shown to
place a high value on physical and social
· The use of belts in the United States interventions to improve child pedestrian
saves $50 billion each year in medical safety20.
care, productivity, and other societal
costs. Belt non-use costs $26 billion · Safer car fronts for pedestrians and
annually15. The numbers are not yet cyclists – it is estimated that up to 2,100
known for Europe as a whole. deaths and 18,000 serious pedestrian and
cyclist casualties of all ages could be
· Every EURO spent on a child safety seat prevented annually in the EU6.
saves 32 EUROS4.
· Safety restraints - include seatbelts,
· Many pedestrian-related injuries occur in booster and child seats are a highly effec-
driveways when backing up the vehicle, tive way of reducing serious and fatal
usually a sports utility vehicle. More than injuries to children. The chance of being
half of these occur when children are killed or severely injured is about 7 times
playing or walking behind a vehicle at the greater for children who are not belted or
time of injury16. restrained9.· 83% of belted and restrained children ·
remain uninjured in accidents. When · There is some evidence that training
properly used, they have shown to have schemes can improve children's behav-
an injury reducing factor of 90-95% for iour when cycling.
rear-facing systems and 60% with
forward facing systems6. · Speed cameras - as speed is the single
· The Netherlands conducted an ex- most important determinant for safety in
tremely effective campaign traffic26 speed cameras have been found
(www.gordeldier.nl) targeted at in- to be an effective measure to reduce
creased seatbelt wearing rates for 4-12 speeding. A systematic review of existing
year olds, and in 2 years time the seat- research on speed cameras consistently
belt wearing rate went up from 52% to showed that speed cameras are an effec-
69%9. tive intervention in reducing road traffic
· Stay rearward facing longer – children collisions and related casualties27.
transported rearward in child passenger
restraints up to the age of 3 have shown · Speed cameras in the United Kingdom
almost 5 times greater protection than caused a 35% reduction in people killed
those in forward facing restraints21 or seriously injured at camera sites, as
well as a 56% reduction in the number
· Bicycle helmets - correctly fitted, bicycle of pedestrians being killed or seriously
helmets reduce the risk of head and brain injured28. Drivers surveyed agreed that
injury by 63 to 88%22 speed cameras were to reduce speeds
and not punish drivers.
· Discount schemes and programmes to
assist with helmet purchase have · Red light cameras – installation of red
shown to be and important element in light cameras yielded 70 to 90% reduc-
encouraging helmet wearing7. As in the tions in red light violations within one
case of financial help to the acquisition year29. Front-into-side crashes at intersec-
of child seats, the evidence suggests tions with traffic signals (the type of colli-
that promotional campaigns may be sion most commonly associated with red
effective in increasing the helmet use, light running) were reduced in one com-
especially among younger children. munity by 32 percent. There were 68
percent fewer front-into-side crashes
· Education campaigns - a broad array of involving injuries.
educational approaches, such as individ-
ual instruction, audiovisual materials, · Mobilisation of political commitment
behaviour modification techniques, model- combined with legislation - the number
ling, simulations, training in real street of road deaths in France fell by 18.1%
situations, and mass media campaigns (1405 lives saved) in one year once
can increase children's knowledge of President Jacques Chirac introduced a
pedestrian safety, has potential for chang- law which included measures such as
ing unsafe behaviours; and a parent automatic penalties, harsher sentences,
education component is needed to maxi- and a probationary licence for new driv-
mize success23. Also, targeted communi- ers30.
cation messages for use of child passen-
ger restraints24 and bicycle helmets25 have Legislation
shown positive behaviour change.
· Has proven to be the most powerful tool in
· Education and skills development26 - the prevention of injuries whereas re-
training programmes in pedestrian skills, search has shown that the use of child
which involve practical roadside experi- restraints can make a big contribution to
ence, have been shown to improve chil- reducing the severity of road accident
dren's skills. injuries, and that a child who travels
without being suitably restrained runs a
· Education targeting both parents and higher risk of injury and a higher risk of
children has produced good evidence of being injured more severely than a child
behaviour change and some evidence who is properly restrained. The common
of casualty reduction. rules on the protection of children there-
fore needed tightening up31.EU legislation currently in force9 regarding children and road safety:
DIRECTIVE 91/671/EEC
The original Directive on seat belt and child restraint use, Directive 91/671/EEC, only applied to cars and vans and, al-
though addressing the mandatory use of child restraints gave scope for Member States to allow children of 3 years and
older to be restrained by an adult seat belt. It also permitted Member States to exempt children younger than 3 years of
age from wearing child restraints provided they are seated in the rear and if child restrains are not available in the car, i.e.
the original Directive did not require parents to buy and use child restraints for their children.
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/l_115/l_11520030509en00630067.pdf
DIRECTIVE 2003/20/EC is a new rule set up as a reinforced legislation that extends the scope of application of the above
mentioned Directive to require the use of seat belts where provided by all motor vehicle occupants and for children to be
restrained by an appropriate child restraint system conforming to UN-ECE standard Regulation 44.03) when travelling in
passenger cars and light vans (M1 and N1 vehicles). This rule will have to be transposed into National law by 9 May
2006.
The main safety benefit of the new Directive is that it recognises that children, like adults, have the right to be protected
when travelling in cars and therefore requires the adults responsible to ensure that the children are restrained by child
restraints that are designed for their age and size. It also mandates the use of seat belts by truck drivers: this measure
alone has the potential for saving 200 truck drivers' lives a year.
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/l_115/l_11520030509en00630067.pdf
RECOMMENDATION 2004/345/EC is a non-binding suggestion of what would be advisable to do, where the enforcement
of information actions in the context of national plans, combining information of the public in the form of publicity cam-
paigns aiming at making the public conscious of road safety issues seem to be effective actions.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004H0345:EN:HTML
Recommended Policy Actions ment such as seat belts and cycle helmets.
What is needed is the political will to implement, · Ensure that child road traffic safety is incorpo-
enforce and sustain road safety and prevention rated into the training of traffic engineers and
measures. The countries who dedicate them- urban planners.
selves to improving road safety will save many
children from death and disability. · Provide resources for encouraging vehicle
designers and manufacturers to find innova-
· Adopt European standard for mandatory rear tive ways to protect child pedestrians and
seat belt use in all Member States, as in the cyclists from cars.
Czech Republic and Hungary wearing rear
seat belts in the rear seats is not mandatory. · Expand the use of Automated Enforcement
Systems (speed cameras, red light cameras)
· Improve enforcement of child passenger re- throughout Europe to help reduce the num-
straints in all Member States of Europe, es- ber of red-light-running violations and speed-
pecially covering booster seat-aged children ing.
via fines.
· Expand the knowledge of parents and the
· Create a European legislation for a voluntary technology of child restraint systems in order
agreement for the automobile industry re- to have children travel rearward facing
garding safer vehicle fronts so that they do longer.
less damage to vulnerable road users in acci-
dents. · Mainstream programme and research fund-
ing, resources and skilled, committed-work
· Promote the culture on road safety through force put together may contribute to improve
legislative enforcement, environmental modi- performances.
fications and, above all, educational cam-
paigns. Children skills and behaviour may be · Involve stakeholders such as practitioners,
improved and influenced at an early stage. policy-makers, parents and trainers in the
translation of evidence into practice in order
EU collaboration to promote optimal dissemination.
· Provide resources for an annual child road Acknowledgements
traffic safety campaign communicating
proven actions should be planned and imple- With thanks to the Austrian Road Safety Board
mented in Member States and co-ordinated for providing injury data, to ULSS20 Verona for
throughout the European Union to provide research assistance and to the Consumer Safety
high quality road safety education to improve Institute in the Netherlands for hosting and sup-
porting the European Child Safety Alliance.
children's skills and awareness of risk, and
publicity to encourage use of safety equip-References content_item_id=1133&folder_id=540
1. The World report on road traffic injury pre- 14.Winston F, Kassam-Adams N, Vivarelli-
vention (http://www.who.int/world-health- O'Neill C, Ford J, Newman E, Baxt C,
day/2004/infomaterials/world_report/en/ Stafford P, Cnaan A. Acute stress disorder
index.html symptoms in children and their parents
after pediatric traffic injury. Pediatrics.
2. http://www.who.int/roadsafety/week/toolkit/ 2002 Jun;109(6):e90.
background/en/print.html
15.Glassbrenner, D. The NewMethodology
3. WHO Global Burden of Disease, 2002 for Calculating the Lives Saved by Safety
Belts and Air Bags, NHTSA Technical Re-
4. Vincenten J. Priorities for Child Safety in port, expected publication in February
the European Union: Agenda for Action. 2003.
Amsterdam, ECOSA, 2004.
16.Winn DG, Agran PF, Castillo DN. Pedes-
5. WHO Regional Office for Europe. Fact trian injuries to children younger than 5
Sheet: Road traffic injuries in the WHO years of age. Pediatrics 1991 Oct;88
European Region: the population groups (4):776-82.
and countries most affected. EURO/03/04
Copenhagen, Rome, 6 April 2004. 17.Roberts I, Norton R, Jackson R. Drive-
way-related child pedestrian injuries: a
6. European Transport Safety Council. Priori- case-control study. Pediatrics. 1995
ties for EU Motor Vehicle Safety Design. Mar;95(3):405-8.
Brussels, 2001.
18.British Medical Association. Injury Pre-
7. “How can injuries in children and older vention. London, 2001.
people be prevented?” WHO Regional
Office for Europe’s health Evidence Net- 19.Racioppi F et al. Preventing road traffic
work (HEN), October 2004. injury: a public health perspective for
Europe. Copenhagen, WHO Regional Of-
8. Improving the Safety of Child Restraints: fice for Europe, 2004.
Booster seat study. Report to Congress.
National Highway Traffic Safety Admini- 20.Bishai D, Mahoney P, DeFrancesco S et
stration, U.S. Department of Transporta- al. How willing are parents to improve pe-
tion, Washington, DC 20590, October destrian safety in their community?. J Epi-
2002. demiol Community Health 2003;57:951–
955.
9. ETSC “Promoting Child Safety Re-
straints” (Number 11, April 06). 21.Aldman B, Gustafsson H, Nygren A, Tin-
qvall C. Child restraints: A prospective
10.Traffic Tech. Technology Transfer Series study of children as car passengers in
Number 133. NHTSA. September 1996. road traffic accidents with respect to re-
Accessed December 6, 2004. http:// straint effectiveness. Acta Peadiatr Scand
www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/ 1987; 339 (Suppl II):1-22.\
traffic_tech/1996/tt133.pdf
22.Towner E, Dowswell T, Mackereth C, Jar-
11.Occupant Protection. Traffic Safety Facts vis S. What Works in Preventing Uninten-
2002, NHTSA, DOT HS 809 610, Page 3 tional Injuries in Children and Young Ado-
lescents. An Updated Systematic Review.
Newcastle, 2001.
12.National Highway Traffic Safety Admini-
stration. Questions and Answers about Air
Bag Safety. Accessed December 6, 2004. 23.Gielen AC, Dannenberg AL, Ashburn N,
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/outreach/ Kou J. Teaching safety: evaluation of a
safesobr/12qp/airbag.html children's village in Maryland. Injury Pre-
vention, 1996; 2 (1): 26-31.
13.National Safe Kids Campaign. Injury
Facts: Motor Vehicle Occupant Injury. Ac- 24.Klassen T, Mackay M, Moher D, Walker
cessed December 7, 2004. http:// A, Jones A. Community - Based Injury
www.safekids.org/tier3_cd.cfm? Prevention (The future of children). Unin-tentional Injuries in Childhood, 2000; 28.United Kingdom Department for Trans-
10:83-110. port. Press Release: Casualties cut by
cameras. 11 February 2003.
25.Morris BA, Trimble NE. Promotion of bicy-
cle helmet use among schoolchildren: a 29.The United States Department of Trans-
randomized clinical trial. Canadian Journal portation Federal Highway Administration /
of Public Health, 1991; 82(2): 92-94. Research and Technology. Priorities, Mar-
ket-Ready Technologies and Innovations:
26.WHO Regional Office for Europe, The Red Light Cameras. Accessed December
European Health Report 2005 Public 22, 2004. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/rnt4u/ti/
health action for healthier children and rlcameras.htm
populations (2005).
30.Label France magazine, No. 52, October
27.Pilkington P, Kinra S. Effectiveness of 2003, Accessed December 6, 2004. http://
speed cameras in preventing road traffic www.france.diplomatie.fr/label_france/52/
collisionsand related casualties: system- gb/17.html
atic review. BMJ, doi:10.1136/
bmj.38324.646574.AE (published 14 31.http://europa.eu.int/rapid/
January 2005). pressReleasesAction.do?
reference=IP/06/583Figure 1
Fatal road traffic injuries of children (0-19 years) in the EU27*
Source: WHO Mortality Database, 5 year average of the latest available years, in most cases 2000 - 2004
Sweden 3,32
Netherlands 3,95
United Kingdom 3,97
Malta 4,01
Finland 4,50
Hungary 4,58
Ireland 4,68
Czech Republic 4,89
Romania 5,37
Bulgaria 5,69
Denmark 5,74
Germany 5,77
Austria 6,06
Luxembourg 6,24
EU27* average 6,30
Poland 6,53
Italy 6,74
Slovakia 7,06
France 7,15
Spain 7,34
Slovenia 7,43
Estonia 7,56
Portugal 8,66
Belgium 8,77
Greece 9,25
Lithuania 10,06
Latvia 10,64
0,00 2,00 4,00 6,00 8,00 10,00 12,00
* no dat a of Cyprus Rate s per 100,000 populationFigure 2
Fatal road traffic injuries in the EU27* by age group and sex - Total number
Source: WHO Mortality Database, 5 year average of the latest available years, in most cases 2000 - 2004
15-19 years 75% 25%
10-14 years 63% 37%
5-9 years 61% 39%
1-4 years 57% 43%Figure 3
Proportions of fatal road traffic injuries in % of all causes mortality
by age group and economic region - EU27*
Source: WHO Mortality Database, 5 year average of the latest available years, in most cases 2000 - 2004
40,00
37,2
35,00
30,00
26
25,00
19,1
20,00
%
17 17
15,00 13,7 13,4
11
10,00 8
7,1
5,00
0,4 0
0,00Figure 4
Killed in road traffic accidents (aged 0-14 years)
by traffic participation in EU-15
(Source: IRTAD Database, 2005, for IT+LU data from 2004, for IE data from 2003)
Mopeds and Mofas
5% Others incl. unknown
4%
Bicyclists
17% Motorcycles and
Scooters
2%
Pedestrians Pas senger cars and
29% station wagons
43%
Figure 5
Killed in road traffic accidents (aged 15-20 years)
by traffic participation in EU-15
(Source: IRTAD Database, 2005, for IT+LU data from 2004, for IE data from 2003)
Motorcycles and
Others incl. Scooters
unknown 12%
3%
Mopeds and Mofas
14%
Bicyclists
Passenger cars and
3%
station wagons
Pedestrians 62%
6%Figure 6
Injured in road traffic accidents (aged 0-14 years)
by traffic participation in EU-15
(Source: IRTAD Database, 2005, for IT+LU data from 2004, for IE data from 2003)
Others incl.
unknown Mopeds and Mofas
Bicyclists
4% 4%
22%
Motorcycles and
Scooters
1%
Pedestrians
28%
Passenger cars and
station wagons
41%
Figure 7
Injured in road traffic accidents (aged 15-20 years)
by traffic participation in EU-15
(Source: IRTAD Database, 2005, for IT+LU data from 2004, for IE data from 2003)
Motorcycles and
Mopeds and Mofas
Scooters
24%
9%
Others incl.
unknown
3%
Bicyclists
7%
Passenger cars and
Pedestrians station wagons
6% 51%
(printed April 2007)
The European Child Safety Alliance is a Programme of EuroSafe and is hosted by the Consumer Safety Institute in the Netherlands
PO Box 75169 1070 AD Amsterdam The Netherlands Tel. +31 20 511 45 13 Fax +31 20 511 45 10
secretariat@childsafteyeurope.org http://www.childsafetyeurope.orgYou can also read
