How your role and that of your organization relates to the EU road safety Framework 2021-2030?
I have been working on road safety for more than 30 years, especially with the EU, on the one hand through research projects, and on the other hand through supporting EU road safety policy. I have been contributing, in one way or another, to all road safety strategies of the European Commission of the European Union, including the latest one, the 2021-2030 strategy. So, I have a full view of the strategy and the role of the European Commission in coordinating road safety activities in Europe. We are currently leading a group of Road Safety Institutes which supports ERSO, the European Road Safety Observatory and one of our main tasks is to monitor road safety progress in the EU Member States. Thus, we are very updated on the current status and progress of road safety at both the EU and national level.
In your opinion, what is the added value of the EU road safety policy framework 2021-2030?
The EU road safety policy framework 2021-2030 has a very high added value. This is a fundamental policy of DG MOVE to assist, inspire, and provide tools to the Member States so they can implement effective road safety policies and strategies and reduce road crashes and related casualties. Setting European targets as early as 2000 has already helped Member States to develop their own strategies and align with EU goals, which encouraged them to take road safety more seriously. At all levels (national, regional, local and EU), the EU road safety policy framework is very useful, and this has also been proven through previous EU strategies.
Do you think the EU is on track to meet its target to halve road deaths and serious injuries by 2030? Why or why not?
The figures are clear: the European Union is not on track, but it is not far away. There has been progress, and we have seen the same pattern in previous target periods, both for 2020 and 2010. In those cases, external factors like the 2008 economic crisis and the 2020 pandemic influenced progress, sometimes even accelerating it temporarily. At the end, the targets were not fully met, but achieving 37% or 42% reductions in the last two periods is still a significant result. And management-wise, targets are not necessarily meant to be fully met, if they are, perhaps they were set too low. The role of setting targets is well served, and our mission is to stress the importance that we are out of target and boost further action. We are not yet where we should be, but this is a nice opportunity to put more effort and accelerate progress toward 2030.
There is an issue with fluctuations in the data; thankfully, the number of fatalities is relatively low, which can cause variations that make the numbers harder to interpret. However, if we look at the longer-term picture, over the full period from 2019 to 2024, the average progress is acceptable. Some countries are performing better than others, some others not, but there isn’t a consistent pattern distinguishing good performers from poor ones. In fact, countries that were previously lagging behind often have more room for improvement, while front-runners may progress more slowly simply because they are already well advanced. So, I wouldn’t spot a country that it is really totally out. Even if some appear to perform better or worse, part of that is due to the data itself and the small sample sizes involved. One way to meet the targets, is to focus on the countries with overall low performance; those ranked around position 19 or 20 and below, where the potential for improvement is much higher. Unfortunately, these countries often don’t invest enough effort in road safety, and as a result, this valuable potential for improvement is lost. Just take the seven countries at the bottom of the list as an example.
What factors do you think are preventing progress towards these targets?
The factors preventing progress are clear. One of the main factors is the lack of real political will. While we often hear everywhere that road safety is a priority, this is rarely translated into budgets and necessary structures. And most importantly, it is not translated very often into systematic enforcement. There is a tremendous resistance by the society against enforcement, speeding or speed reduction, and the politicians and the Authorities are struggling to put these issues into the agenda and bring results. For example, with regards to the speed issues, we are talking about speeding more and more and this is very positive, but when we go in practice to make the policies happen, speed reduction is not welcome, and the necessary measures are often implemented at slow pace.
There are some exceptions, for example, Spain has introduced a 30 km/h speed limit throughout the country and several cities across Europe have implemented similar measures. However, we have to realize that there are few cities in comparison to the thousands of cities in Europe. Of course, there are quite a few cities, particularly in Northern and Western Europe, which have adopted 30 km/h zones. But if you go down to South and to East, speeding is not a real issue. Authorities are struggling to implement effective speed management. As for which measure would be the most effective, certainly, we are living in the era of city-wide 30 km/h speed limits as a catalyzer for a new road safety culture.
We have seen (and we are frontrunners in the research in this area) that there is a 37% reduction in fatalities in cities that have adopted the 30 km/h speed limit. Οne can easily see that if 50% of fatalities in Europe occur in cities, 37% of them can be prevented if we implement city-wide 30km/h speed limits. This leads us, with just one low-cost measure, to almost a 20% overall reduction in fatalities within a year, which is tremendous. This measure especially targets pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists, who account for 70% of fatalities in urban areas. It is the since-long waited single road safety measure with such significant benefits at such a low cost; with a high societal impact with such a small change in our habits. Thus, this is something that should definitely be promoted.
Without forgetting to mention though, that there are more and more countries which are working for speed limits reduction outside urban areas, like Netherlands in motorways and France and recently Ireland in rural roads. These lower speed limits can bring 15-20% fewer fatalities, which is also very important. However, as we can see, these are isolated examples, and not yet widespread. So, there is clearly a need for more effort. Speeding, as the key factor for road crashes, must be recognized as a major societal health issue for which action is needed at EU level, as is the case with smoking and alcohol consumption. Consequently, the European Union should set the maximum speed limits as a European rule in all urban roads in Europe (30km/h – with the exception of selected main axes) assuming thus its fundamental role of protecting its citizens’ lives.
Is the Safe System approach, on which the EU road safety framework is based, still relevant for achieving these targets? Why or why not?
When it comes to the Safe System Approach, it is becoming increasingly relevant because we need system-wide actions that address in a combined way behaviour, infrastructure, vehicles in order to multiply the effects. Shared responsibility between the Authorities and users is the key for increased effectiveness of road safety measures. But the current structure of National Authorities does not support the implementation of a Safe System Approach, especially in Southern and Eastern countries. And that’s why the road crashes problem in Europe is not primarily in the Northwest, but it lies in the South and East. So, we should not assume that just because cities like Copenhagen or Munich are doing well, that Europe as a whole is implementing the Safe System approach effectively. Even in the Northwest, there are still areas for improvement, but in the East and South, the Safe System approach is often neither well understood nor properly applied.
Do you think there is sufficient political will at the EU level to implement effective road safety policies?
For the sufficient political will, there is a lot of talk, but much less in terms of financing, organization and bold decision-making. And we have seen the examples of Paris, Bologna and Wales for the implementation of 30 km/h speed limits, all of which triggered strong reactions. The Italian Government said that no more cities are allowed to set city-wide 30 km/h speed limits. The British Government, even though the UK is no longer in the EU, reacted after Wales country-wide 30km/h initiative by declaring that no speed limits in cities can be changed without central government approval. And in Paris, there has also been significant opposition. So, overall, the real political will remains weak.
How adaptable are current EU road safety policies to accommodate technological advancements such as vehicle automation and data-driven solutions?
The EU is a frontrunner in guiding legislation and developments in Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), and Connected and Cooperative Automated Mobility. There are existing policies and directives in place and although technology is rapidly developing, the European Union is following quite well. One could even say that the EU is progressing more thoughtfully than the United States; perhaps a bit slower, but certainly more safely.
Are they addressing the impact of changing mobility habits, such as the rise of e-bikes and autonomous driving?
Concerning the changing mobility habits, such as the rise of autonomous driving, it is important to note that autonomous driving is not there yet, so it is not a real issue. At least in Europe, and even in the U.S., it is limited to a few exceptions, like California and a couple of other States that they do have autonomous driving. So, for now and for the coming years, automation is not yet a real issue of safety. What we are more likely to see is a growing presence of ADAS, which is very positive. However, ADAS is still mainly focused on the safety of passenger car occupants, whereas at least in the cities, the problem it is outside the car with pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. And even outside cities, the issue isn’t limited to passenger cars alone. The European Union is bringing new legislation and adapting to ITS and automation at a steady pace. In the U.S. we see crashes involving automated vehicles that we do not see in Europe. Of course, Europe is lagging behind in introducing automation onto public roads, but the EU is making a very bold effort in this area, which is quite difficult technically in the dense urban areas of Europe.
With regards to e-bikes and scooters, we have seen a pattern similar to that of bicycles. The crashes curve is going up in the beginning, but as more and more people use e-bikes and e-scooters, safety tends to rapidly improve. The European Commission and the Member States are taking action by introducing laws to arrange e-scooter and e-bike traffic, building appropriate infrastructure and creating ecosystems that promote calmer driving. Certainly, a key prerequisite for safe e-bike and e-scooter traffic is a 30 km/h speed limit. Of course, we need separate infrastructure for micromobility and vehicle standards, which are being developed by the European Commission and Member States. We need enforcement, geofencing by the operators but also geofencing or any type of control applied also to private e-scooters and bikes. There is still more work to be done. The European Commission is working there, we have started to have statistics, which was not the case before, and micromobility rules are evolving throughout Europe. And the EU is supporting properly all these initiatives.
In your opinion, are the EU’s key performance indicators (e.g., speeding, alcohol consumption while driving) effective for assessing road safety at the EU and national level? Are the targets realistic?
So far, we had no EU-wide data on Road Safety KPIs. Now, thanks to initiatives by the European Commission, we have data not just from a few countries, but from almost all EU Member States, which is a very significant step forward. However, we need thorough analysis of these KPIs, especially through time-series, to check how each indicator is evolving. For example, we need to examine how speeding trends change when specific measures are implemented, any type of measures campaigns, 30 km/h legislation, new vehicle technologies, infrastructure upgrades, or other interventions. Each measure should be monitored not only in terms of final outcome of crashes, but also in terms of intermediate outcome, which are reflected in the KPIs. The KPIs defined by the European Commission are very appropriate and new indicators are also being explored, and we happy to contribute to this. These developments are very useful. Most importantly, KPI collection and analysis should be systematic. This will assist progress toward both the Road Safety KPI targets and the overall targets of crash reduction.
Are these indicators driving meaningful change or simply tracking progress?
Of course, these indicators are certainly meaningful in tracking progress of road safety performance, but if properly and systematically analysed, they can support the appropriate evidence based political decisions at EU and country level, with great potential for safety improvement. For example, the low rates of helmet wearing in Greece led to increased targeted enforcement, which started to bring significant results.
Are there insights or untapped potential that might not be captured by these formal monitoring processes?
Besides KPIs, we should monitor the implementation of actions, programs and measures. Currently, this is not done systematically anywhere. Authorities often implement measures and then they forget or avoid to monitor. No one checks how far implementation has gone or which were the effects of these measures. There is need for standardized and systematic evaluation process and this is something that is currently blatantly missing. The Americans have much more established procedures. That doesn’t necessarily mean they perform better in terms of outcomes, but their procedures are much better established at least. Monitoring should be the next major challenge, covering all types of road safety measures, including infrastructure projects, enforcement efforts, public campaigns, vehicle technology and legislation. All actions included in both EU and national road safety action plans should be closely monitored and evaluated, both in terms of implementation progress and their actual results.
Is the EU funding adequate to support the different road safety policy areas?
As far as there are crash casualties in the European roads, funding for road safety would never be sufficient. We have to compare road safety funding with funding of other major societal issues, such as environment or health. It becomes clear that road safety funding is not that high. Of course, there are issues with funding labels. For example, we may improve urban space in the city and call it road safety, which is partially true. Similarly, when we build a motorway, there may be safety improvements, but the primary objective is usually accessibility. In many cases, large amounts of funding, especially for infrastructure, are claimed to be safety, but in reality, they are not fully safety-oriented. Even urban development projects often overlook basic safety principles, as their main aim tends to be the better management of traffic and cars. There is funding available at all levels; at research through Horizon Europe, at infrastructure improvement through Connecting Europe Facility and through large-scale regional infrastructure programs that include road safety components. Cohesion funds also foresee significant budgets and some of this funding occasionally supports road safety. However, this funding is often hidden under broader categories and not everything labeled as “road safety” truly reflects a dedicated road safety investment. A dedicated European Fund for Road Safety would highlight a sincere political will and engagement for safer road traffic in Europe.
Are there significant differences between policy areas?
Of course, there is more budget for infrastructure improvements than to awareness campaigns; and that is normal. There is also much less public budget for vehicle-related safety, where the actual deployment of safe vehicles is largely funded by the private sector in the EU. The European Union does invest significantly in research for safer vehicles, safer roads and safer behaviour with appropriate budget distribution among them.
If funding is inadequate, how could it be improved?
It is all about priorities and optimization of budget distribution. Funding for road safety has to be earmarked and linked to proper evaluation of results. If we put a specific budget to road safety, we should be able to clearly assess the results. The process needs to be much more straightforward and not hidden under broader schemes that, in the end, may not actually lead to safety improvement. Budgets should be earmarked and evaluated systematically. If certain measures show positive results through evaluation, then we can better justify their continuation and allocate further funding. Otherwise, the argument becomes: “Yes, we spent money, but we have not seen the results, so we stopped funding”. We have to identify measures with high safety return and ensure they are continued with the necessary budgets to support them.
Are findings from academic effectively used to update road safety policies and legislation? If yes, in what ways? If not, what are the consequences and how could it be improved?
Academics and researchers are present everywhere, actively supporting policy both at the EU and national level. The road safety scientific community is very strong, so one could say that we know the problems and their solutions, but what is lacking is proper implementation. Academics and researchers are there to support, and I believe that their proposals are well exploited by the Authorities. However, one issue is that the voice of scientists remains weak in the society. We need bold marketing strategies against established habits of speeding, drink-driving, mobile phone use while driving, or similar risky behaviours. What should be improved in the way scientists support decision-making is marketing; to better “sell” and communicate the messages of scientific evidence.
Recently, in November 2024, I successfully completed my personal campaign of running 30 marathons in 30 months in order to actively promote in an original way, the adoption of city-wide 30 km/h speed limits. And I can tell you that we had ten times more visibility doing that than when I was speaking as an Expert Professor. That was a bolder marketing approach.
In your opinion, have been EU efforts to increase road safety by introducing new vehicle general safety regulations enough? What could be improved?
The EU General Safety Regulation is a breakthrough regulation globally and a frontrunner legislation for safer vehicles. It has already brought significant results over the last decades through various vehicle safety improvements. The recent version of the General Safety Regulation is well at the right direction, especially with the introduction of Intelligent Speed Assistance (ISA) systems, which have been in force since July 2024. Now, I believe we should start the discussion to activate the ISA feature that limits speed. The capability is already there, it just needs to be activated in one way or another. This is not a simple technical task and it requires careful discussion. But now that ISA systems are installed in all new vehicles, the debate around enabling speed limiters should be accelerated. Overall, with the current General Safety Regulation, we are quite advanced.
How successful has the EU been in integrating road safety objectives into other EU policies, such as regional, urban, or industrial policies? Are specific examples or reasons?
Again, there are many good intentions and several policy texts. Sometimes these are indeed translated into a specific measure, but sometimes not. The key issue here is the lack of monitoring: we need to track the progress from declarations and written policies to specific actions. In terms of regional, urban and industrial policies, there has been progress in integrating road safety aspects and a general consistency toward safer approaches. However, the extent to which the safety component of these policies is implemented varies greatly – both between countries and even within the same country.
Looking ahead, which policy areas should be prioritized to achieve the EU’s road safety objectives, and why?
The fundamental policy should be the proper management of speeds and speeding, both inside and outside urban areas. Outside cities, a key priority would be to address high-risk sites, which are numerous, especially in the South and East countries. And inside the cities, the 30 km/h speed limit serves as a key catalyzer. In fact, the city-wide 30 km/h speed limit represents one pillar; the second pillar is the effective management of public space, reallocating its use to provide more space for Public Transport and safe active travel and less for speedy private passenger cars. Experts agree that the number one road safety measure is improving Public Transport, as it is the safest transport mode.
What are the key findings from your recent research on road safety, and how have these findings influenced policy or practice?
We are an immersive research team with extensive scientific experience in road safety. Of course, we mentioned the city-wide 30 km/h speed limit, as we have published the first two global reviews on its effects; one focused on before-and-after studies and the other on simulation studies. We have also worked on older drivers, influencing EU directives, especially regarding the introduction of new neurological exams after a certain age and questions around driving capabilities for older populations. Our data and analyses help identify where the main problems lie, in terms of geographic areas, user groups and vehicle types.
In addition, we are also working intensively on Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) for various road safety measures. We are one of the leading teams globally in producing CBAs on road safety and were the first to apply CBA not only to individual measures but also to broader road safety policies, which are even more complex. We have also assisted the European Commission and the European Investment Bank with the road infrastructure safety assessment and the identification of the most profitable road safety investments. We also support the European Road Safety Observatory (ERSO) by providing key data and knowledge, gathered by the Authorities and other sources. All types of data, knowledge and insights are gathered and disseminated through our own channels at NTUA and also through ERSO platforms.
What emerging trends or new technologies do you see as impacting the ability to significantly reduce road fatalities and serious injuries in the future?
Certainly, ADAS technologies are becoming more widespread and increasingly useful, with more and more useful applications. One emerging technology that I would specifically mention is the driver behaviour telematics. The monitoring of driver behaviour through telematics is being adopted more and more by the insurance industry. The UK, Italy, and Greece are among the frontrunners in this field. This development is not so much the result of Authorities’ initiative, but rather led by the insurance, which has been proved to bring results up to 25% less fatalities by the use of telematics. This is something that should be promoted and why not promoted by the European Union? Some scientists have proposed that driver behaviour telematics should be mandatory in the insurance policies of young drivers (up to 25 years old) and older drivers (over 65). We have even conducted CBA on this measure and the expected results were significant: up to 20% reduction of fatalities. In our days these two age groups, young and older drivers are in constant crisis. Older drivers are involved in more and more crashes and their numbers are rising. So, it is time to tackle driver behaviour directly, through technological tools like telematics. Unlike vehicle-based safety systems, which mostly benefit owners of new cars and focus on the vehicle itself, telematics targets the behavioural aspect, regardless of the vehicle’s age.
Are national strategies adapting to incorporate these emerging trends and technologies? If so, how? If not, what obstacles are preventing this?
Technologies are incorporated quite slowly into the national legislation. In most countries, adoption typically follows a European Union Directive, which means it is the EU that triggers these changes. The obstacles are that road safety is not a priority, we are too busy with too many other issues and we forget that we have to work on both technology and road safety.
What changes are necessary to harness these trends or support these new technologies? Should the future EU policy framework include measures such as changes in infrastructure, culture, or other areas?
Safety is constantly transforming; the problems are transformed and the solutions should be transformed. Therefore, the EU should find and exploit any new technologies at all levels: strategic, tactical and operational. One key example is the use of big data. We need to exploit all big data available to better understand and then tackle the road safety phenomenon. These data are not necessarily limited to public Authorities, they can also come from private sources. We have to put in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and big data for both problem identification as well as quick and dynamic implementation of efficient solutions.
What type of initiatives should be prioritized by the EU to maximize progress towards Vision Zero by 2050 and why?
The types of initiatives that should be prioritized are, behaviour, behaviour and behaviour. Of course, we are also working on infrastructure and vehicles, but we know that 90% of crashes are caused by human behaviour. Therefore, any initiative that focuses on behaviour, such as 30 km/h speed limits, telematics, enforcement and awareness campaigns should be implemented consistently. These measures bring more results compared to the slower effects of infrastructure improvements. In this context, the full set of 26 actions, outlined in the Road Safety Framework of DG MOVE align closely with what scientific evidence and the scientists have identified as top priorities. Among them, managing speeding should be even put higher in the agenda.
What opportunities exist for greater collaboration between stakeholders in advancing road safety initiatives?
The EU has been doing great work in terms of research, particularly by bringing together industry, academia and Authorities. Initiatives under the Connecting Europe Facility also support this kind of collaboration. The most successful examples of such cooperation should be highlighted and promoted to encourage Member States to adopt similar models. However, we need a culture of all Authorities to learn to work with industry and academia; academia with industry; industry with Authorities; There is a whole ecosystem to be even there and it has to be stronger.
What emerging trends or phenomena in road safety research do you believe have the potential to significantly impact policy or practice in the coming years?
Road safety should now fully embrace big data and Artificial Intelligence (AI). These technologies enable real-time support across the entire system; for vehicles, drivers, pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. They also play a crucial role in traffic management and infrastructure management. Big data and AI are the key tools that can help us move quickly from problem identification to the implementation of effective measures.
Interview to RAMBOLL in February 2025
