The SAFECYCLE project

Transcription

1 The SAFECYCLE project Assessment of applications Antonino Tripodi CTL, University of Rome 25 October Vienna Final Conference

2 Why analysing applications? Are the apps suitable in all contexts? Can they be implemented or used as such or do they need to be supported in some way? What could be their positive or negative aspects? What are the most promising apps that should be promoted? What are the apps impacts on safety of cyclists? 2

3 Analysis methodology Selecting the more relevant apps Choosing those more representatives of various categories SWOT analysis Assessing potential strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats Selecting the most promising apps for safety of cyclists Comparison of opinions and selection of main apps Impact assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis Quantitative assessment of main apps 3

4 From 30 to 11 applications cyclist bicycle Speed vest Direction indicator Copenhagen wheel HindSight Foldable handlebars Light Lane Bike Self-powered laser Bike braking light Hokey spokes Safety area other vehicle Car airbag SaveCap ISI LED-Mark ISA Frontzicht Night view Lexguard Photovoltaic panels Countdown traffic lights Traffic light for rain Veh audible system Traffic eye Zurich See-mi Street view Arrive Alive Infrastructure Opwegnaarsc hool.nl Routeplanner Gent Bike wise Citizens connect Bike stability internet & nomadic 4

5 Selecting promising apps 5

6 Selecting promising apps 1. SWOT analysis of selected apps by experts Type of application: Brief description: Status: Strengths Weaknesses Possible criteria Assessment Assessment Possible criteria Safety advantages Safety disadvantages Innovative aspects Negative impacts on safety of cyclists High ratio between safety and price Costs for development Directly developed for cyclists safety Gaps in capabilities Positive impacts on cyclists safety Unusability for cyclist Userfriendly application Not common type of use Immediate market availability Completely new application Similar application available Prototype application Main focus on safety Impacting cyclist safety only indirectly Increase of cyclist visibility No information on safety impacts Reduces interaction with other modes No impact on cyclist visibility Supports safer path choice Low accident prevention Trendy Extra items to wear Comfort Structural weakness (e.g. can be easily broken) Works only if majority of users uses it Dependence on interaction with other actors on the road Market developments Technology development and innovation Business and product development Useful in all geographical area Potentially high market demand Already existing Previous experiences existing Suitable for several target groups Suitable for several motives Easiness in estimating safety impacts Low development costs Low technical skills for development Integation with other applications (e.g. phone) Internal environment External environment Legislative effects IT developments Seasonality, weather effects Useless in some geographical area High costs for use High costs for development Low market demand Developed in different geographical/cultural context Useless for some user categories Difficulties in estimating safety impacts High technical skills for development Buyer of the application not directly benefiting of its use Complexity of the application Can produce increase of external costs Subject to vandalism SWOT Analysis < name of the application > 2. Opinions on apps by bicycle users (workshops in Brussels &Rome) Possible criteria Assessment Assessment Possible criteria Opportunities Threats 3. Brainstorming session to identify the most promising apps (selection made by project partners) 6

7 SWOT analysis 33 EU experts on cycling and/or road safety provided opinions about the 30 apps A template was used in which the experts were able to give opinions about: Strengths: advantages of the application, innovative aspects, etc. Weaknesses: disadvantages, gaps in capabilities, financial aspects, etc. Opportunities: impacts on mobility and the environment, customer satisfaction, quality of life, etc. Threats: economic impacts, awareness of benefits, political impacts, etc. 7

8 Synthesis of SWOT results Strenghts Improved safety conditions thanks to (depending on the app): Higher cyclist visibility Reduction of interactions with other transport modes Support of safer route choice Innovation User-friendliness Trendy Increased awareness about cycling safety Possible integration with other existing applications Potential market demand Possible use by several target groups and for several purposes Possible use in all geographical areas Opportunities Weaknesses New or prototype app (thus little information on safety impacts) Impacting user behaviour (can cause an excess of confidence leading to higher risks) Extra item to fit to the bicycle or wear (depending on the app) No direct impact on cyclists safety (depending on the app) High costs of development and /or use Not suitable in all seasons or under all weather conditions Buyer of the app doesn t benefit directly from its use (depending on the app) Complexity of the app (e.g. due to not common type of use) Doubts about possibility of use in some countries, due to legislation Threats 8

9 Synthesis of SWOT results In most north EU countries Cycling is a serious mode of transport: e.g. share around 26% in The Netherlands Apps can have a high potential for improving the safety of cyclists Other countries (e.g. Italy, Czech Republic) Cycling is less frequent: e.g. share around 5% in Italy or 3% in Czech Republic Apps are useful as ways of increasing awareness about cycling Apps can help the individual cyclist to be better visible 9

10 Most promising apps Bicycle Physical problems Street projection Visibility Other vehicles Airbag Speed Visibility Infrastructure Traffic light Visibility Internet & nomadic Route planner Monitoring & action HindSight35 Light Lane Bike Bicycle braking light Car airbag for cyclists ISA Intelligent Speed Adaptation LEXGUARD Countdown traffic lights Traffic Eye Zürich LED-Mark Routeplanner Gent Citizens connect (nomadic) 10

11 Impact assessment For each app a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) is realised based on assumptions about: costs for implementing the app costs for maintaining the app unit to be considered depending on the app (km of equipped roads, n. of traffic lights equipped, n. of vehicles equipped,...) type of accident (intersection, during night, frontal) expected duration of the app interest rate 11

12 CBA calculation CBA = Actualised Benefits / Actualised Costs Benefits = monetized reduction of n. of accidents, injured and victims Social costs * Crash Reduction Factors * n. of accidents Crash Reduction Factors are estimated from literature review (few data from FOTs or similar use of values of systems with similar effect assumed equal in all the countries considered) Costs = implementation plus maintenance costs Actualization factor = function of app duration and interest rate 12

13 Accident data Indicator Netherlands Belgium Italy Czech Rep Bicycle fatalities % fatalities at junction 63% 37% 62% 65% % fatalities urban area % fatalities dark/ twilight % bicycle accidents in total accidents 61% 46% 52% 30% 20% 22% 58% 43% 21% 9% 7% 9% 13

14 Cycling fatality rate Source: Cycling in the Netherlands,

15 Social costs of accidents Cost ( ) Netherlands Belgium Italy Czech Rep EU Accident 19,000 16,000 14,000 4,800 13,450 Injury 236, , ,000 67, ,775 Fatality 1,782,000 1,639,000 1,430, ,000 1,336,500 15

16 Light Lane Bike assumptions Only accidents during night involving cyclists considered Source : CARE database CRFs: effect is half of that of tailights Source: Elvik handbook of road safety measures Implementation costs = n. of bikes equipped * cost unit All bikes equipped over 10 year period Number of bikes per inhabitants Source: cycling Netherlands Cost unit is estimated based on info of Chinese manufacturer Maintenance costs per year = 10% of implementation costs SAFECYCLE, June

17 Light Lane Bike CRF = -40% (victims) / -40% (injured) / -40% (accidents) Netherlands Belgium Italy Czech Rep Accident , ,760 Injury , ,324 Fatality Unit cost ( ) N. of bikes 16,000,000 5,500,000 27,000,000 5,200, ,000,000 Costs (mln ) ,420 Benefits (mln ) , ,813 CBA 1,44 4,69 2,40 1,09 1,44 EU 17

18 LexGuard assumptions Only lateral accidents involving cyclists considered Source : CARE database Number multiplied by 20% for death and 1,25% for injured, only blind spot accidents with trucks/busses (based on data from NL and B) CRFs: effect are the same of convex mirrors for cars but considering gradual implementation Source: Elvik handbook of road safety measures Implementation costs = n. of trucks equipped * cost unit All trucks equipped over 10 year period Number of new trucks registered per country per year Source: EUROSTAT Cost unit is estimated based on info Dutch insurance company Maintenance costs per year = 10% of implementation costs SAFECYCLE, June

19 LexGuard CRF = -22% (victims) / -22% (injured) / 0% (accidents) Netherlands Belgium Italy Czech Rep Accident 4,237 4,694 10,633 2,142 60,300 Injury Fatality Unit cost ( ) 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 N. of veh 39,000 56, ,000 20,000 1,700,000 Costs (mln ) 712 1,022 3, ,024 Benefits (mln ) CBA 0,09 0,04 0,03 0,02 0,02 EU 19

20 Countdown traffic lights assumptions Only accidents involving cyclists on junctions considered Source for number of accidents: CARE database CRFs: in NL 18% of accidents at intersections happens at traffic light controlled ones. Assumption that 50% of them are avoided Source: Oversteekongevallen met fietsers januari 2010 Implementation costs = n. of traffic lights equipped * cost unit All traffic lights over 10 year period N. of intersections with traffic light = km of urban road * 0.05 In NL 118,000 km of urban road and 5,500 intersections with traffic lights. Thus 0.05 traffic light intersection per km of urban road Cost unit is estimated based on info Dutch municipality (cost for the whole intersection) Maintenance costs per year = 10% of implementation costs 20

21 Countdown traffic lights Netherlands Belgium Italy Czech Rep Accident 2,347 3,676 6,802 1,899 77,126 Injury 2,204 3,767 6,480 1,824 80,336 Fatality Unit cost ( ) 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 N. of traffic lights CRF = -9% (victims) / -9% (injured) / -9% (accidents) 5,900 6,900 3,450 3,750 90,000 Costs (mln ) Benefits (mln ) ,219 CBA 16,72 21,13 57,98 5,26 25,38 EU 21

22 RoutePlanner Gent assumptions All accidents considered Source : CARE database CRFs: effect is same of dynamic route guidance (if 100% of usage, only 1.5% of accident reduction) Source: Elvik handbook of road safety measures Implementation costs = cost unit 1 routeplanner per country Cost unit is estimated equal to 1 mln for smaller countries and 2 mlns for larger countries Maintenance costs per year = 10% of implementation costs SAFECYCLE, June

23 RoutePlanner Gent CRF = -1,5% (victims) / - 1,5% (injured) / - 1,5% (accidents) Netherlands Belgium Italy Czech Rep Accident 6,130 6,792 15,385 3, ,740 Injury 5,831 6,906 14,804 3, ,539 Fatality ,353 Unit cost ( ) 1,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 27,000,000 N. of planners Costs (mln ) 1,6 1,6 1,6 1,6 44 Benefits (mln ) CBA 99,25 112,70 95,52 14,73 76,68 EU 23

24 Synthesis of CBA results max CountDownTrafficLight Benefits (less accidents) Citizen Connect TrafficEyeZürich Routeplanner Gent HindsSight BicycleBrakeLight LedMark LightLane BicycleAirbag Blind spot system trucks ISA Cyclist Bicycle Other vehicle Infrastructure Internet min Costs (investment) max SAFECYCLE, June 2011

25 Synthesis of CBA results Apps that require installations in passenger cars or trucks result in a very low Benefit Cost ratio Apps to be installed at the bicycles, two out of three seem to have a positive Benefit Cost ratio The infrastructure-based systems show a mixed picture The Internet apps have the highest Benefit Cost ratio (due to low costs) 25

26 Programme 14:15 What is possible with ICT and ITS to enhance the safety of cyclist? An overview Marjolein de Jong, IMOB, Hasselt University 14:35 Potential successful applications more into detail: impact assessment Antonino Tripodi, CTL, University of Rome 15:00 Break 15:15 Which kind of applications have potential for the future: Ranking the applications in groups Zbynek Sperat, CDV Czech Republic 15:45 The potential of ICT and ITS for the future Ronald Jorna, Mobycon. Discussion about: a) standardisation and/or type approval b) further research and demonstration c) policy (safety, cycling, ITS) 16:15 Conclusions and follow up 16:30 Cycle tour starting from the venue location SAFECYCLE, June 2011