The EU and its member states are set to miss the ambitious goals of halving fatalities and serious injuries from traffic accidents by 2030 and gradually eliminating them totally by 2050, according to a new audit report published on Tuesday by the European Court of Auditors (ECA).
By 2030, deaths are set to fall by only a quarter instead of the planned half of the figure for 2019, when 22,800 people were killed on EU roads. According to preliminary figures for 2023, about 20,400 road fatalities took place last year – down just 1% from the 20,640 victims in 2022. While this is a 10% reduction since 2019, the downward trend has levelled off in several member states.
On the positive side, European roads are the safest in the world. However, road accidents are still a frequent cause of premature death in the EU. Vulnerable users such as pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists are particularly at risk, as they account for almost 50 % of deaths, ahead of car occupants (45 %). For every life lost, an estimated five more people suffer serious injuries.
“The EU has come a long way on road safety, but many lives are still being lost every day on our roads,” said Eva Lindström, the Swedish ECA member who led the audit, at a virtual press conference. “At the current rate of progress, the goal of halving fatalities this decade will not be achieved. If the EU and its member states want to meet their goals, they must move their efforts up a gear.”
To meet the 2030 goal, an annual EU-wide cut of 4.6 % would be needed, but over the last five years the rate has averaged only 2.5 % a year. A possible game change might be the introduction of autonomous cars but the auditors did not look into this. They highlighted the safety risk of the aging car fleet. The EU average is 12 years with a variation from 8 to over 15 years by member state.
Still, countries with an old car fleet have room for drastic reductions in the fatality rate. Poland with an average age of 14,5 years was awarded the Road Safety Award in 2023 by the European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) after having reduced the fatality rate by 47 % in the last decade – far exceeding the EU average of 22 %.
The fatality rate varies widely by member states with an EU average of 46 per 1 million inhabitants in 2022. Sweden decided on a ‘zero vision’ – that no-one should be killed or seriously injured in traffic - already in 1997 and has the lowest fatality rate with 22 although the number of deaths rebounded slightly in 2023 after the COVID-pandemic. Romania had the highest fatality rate with 86 and an old car fleet.
Belgium’s road traffic fatality rate is around the EU average. As previously reported, the number of traffic victims is falling in the longer term, but not fast enough to meet Belgium's target of zero traffic deaths by 2050.
Road safety shared competence
The auditors collected empirical data from a range of sources, including from a sample of four member states (Spain, Lithuania, Romania and Slovakia), where they analysed the national road safety strategies and relevant legislative and policy documents. They also examined a sample of 13 road safety infrastructure projects that were financed under the EU budget in the 2014-2020 period.
Road safety is a shared competence with member states but the auditors consider that the EU road safety goals can only be achieved if the member states put the necessary policies and funding in place. They are figuratively speaking the ones in the driving seat when it comes to implementing certain measures that could directly improve road safety, according to ECA.
That does not exempt the European Commission from its responsibility. To help member states prevent fatalities and serious injury, the Commission adopted a multi-layered approach in 2018, the EU Safe System, with focus on safe vehicles, road infrastructure, and road use (driving behavior). This approach is mainly built on recommendations but there are also directives (annex 3 in the report).
The auditors find the approach comprehensive, but they also point to shortcomings. For example, the Commission’s monitoring of member states’ performance is not yet effective. In addition, EU action does not cover all risk areas, such as speed, which – together with drink-driving, not wearing seatbelts, and driver distraction – is one of the main causes of accidents.
More EU legislation needed?
The auditors did not report on infringement procedures launched by Commission in relation to road safety but noted non-compliance by more than half of the member states with a directive which requires them to report what network sections they define as primary roads (roads with a high frequency of accidents outside urban areas).
“It’s up to the legislators to decide if more legislation is needed,” Eva Lindström told The Brussels Times. According to the auditors, the Commission’s role in overseeing national enforcement is limited, as it is based on a directive addressing only certain cross-border offences and a non-binding recommendation dating from 2004.
It would take the EU 20 years to revise this directive. Only this week, after the audit report had been finalised, was a political agreement reached to ensure better cooperation between member states in cross-border investigations of traffic offences. Currently, 40% of cross-border offences are going unpunished.
To prevent reckless driving while abroad, the list of traffic offences committed by non-resident drivers that trigger cross-border assistance – speeding, drink-driving or failing to stop at a red light – has been expanded to include dangerous parking and overtaking, crossing a solid line and hit-and-run offences.
Between 2014 and 2020, the EU provided around €6.7 billion for projects that contributed to road safety. However, EU requirements do not cover infrastructure with the most fatalities, such as urban areas, cycle paths, and non-primary roads. Also, road safety was not a key criterion when selecting projects to improve safety, as it competed with other priorities such as greener transport.
If road safety is not a mandatory criterion for funding, shouldn’t the rules be changed? “We examined whether road safety had been used effectively as a selection criterion,” the audit team replied.
“We concluded that it was not a key criterion when selecting infrastructure projects with road safety objectives. In fact, only four of the projects in our sample of 13 projects were selected under a priority specific to road safety.”
Commission welcomes audit
ECA recommends the Commission to advise monitoring committees in the member states to specify selection criteria that includes road safety objectives. Another recommendation is to improve reporting on serious injuries and set performance targets.
Surprisingly, the key performance indicators are not always targeted and quantified. Furthermore, the statistics on serious injuries is not comparable between member states. The data is collected from the member states into a database which was established by a Council decision in 1993 but did not specify which data should be reported.
In its reply, the European Commission welcomed the audit report on road safety. The Commission also acknowledged “that after years of good progress towards its ambitious road safety targets, additional efforts and methods are required to implement Vision Zero”. However, the setting of aggregated performance indicators on EU level will be challenging, it says.
The Commission also admitted that speed is one of the main factors in road deaths and serious injuries. Until now, it has not issued any recommendation to member states on safe speed because it is a member state competency. After the report, it will consider what further guidance may be appropriate.
“We remain steadfast in promoting actions that bolster road safety across the EU, in alignment with the Safe System approach and in response to societal and technological developments in the sector,” the Commission told The Brussels Times.
M. Apelblat
The Brussels Times
