Guides & Manuals

The WHO, World Bank, FIA Foundation and Global Road Safety Partnership (GRSP) produced a series of good practice manuals, following the publication of the World report on road traffic injury prevention in 2004, which provide guidance on implementation of interventions to address specific risk factors in road safety. The topics covered in the initial series of manuals were: helmets (2006), drinking and driving (2007), speed management (2008), seat-belts and child restraints (2009), data systems (2010), pedestrian safety (2013), road safety legislation (2013), powered two- and three-wheeler safety (2017) and cyclist safety (2020).

Since the series of manuals was first published, the scientific evidence base relating to various risk factors and the effectiveness of interventions have continued expanding. Contemporary research has refined our knowledge about specific risk factors, such as distracted driving, and vehicle impact speed and risk of death for pedestrians. New issues and practices have arisen, such as a tropical helmet standard and an anti-braking control standard for motorcycles. New and existing interventions have been implemented and evaluated, with increasing application in LMICs. Research attention and policy response have also increasingly been applied to emerging road safety issues including e-bikes, drugs other than alcohol, fleet safety, urban mobility, micro mobility options, air and noise pollution, public transport and technological advances.

As a result of these developments, the good practice manuals required revision so that they can continue to be key references for road safety policy implementation and research. This is particularly important, given the emphasis placed on road safety within the framework of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and because of the global impetus to reduce road deaths and injuries, resulting from the declaration of the two United Nations’ Decades of Action for Road Safety (2011–2020 and 2021– 2030). The manuals have been revised to reflect these developments as they continue to be valuable resources providing evidence-based and cost-effective solutions to save lives and reduce injuries.

The management of speed remains one of the biggest challenges facing road safety practitioners around the world and calls for a concerted, long-term, multidisciplinary response. The speed at which a vehicle travels directly influences the risk of a crash as well as the severity of injuries sustained, and the likelihood of death resulting from that crash. This manual advocates for a strong and strategic approach to creating a Safe System, with speed management at its heart. Reducing motor vehicle speeds in areas where the road user mix includes a high volume of vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists, and on non-divided rural roads, is especially important.

In many countries around the world, deficiencies in data or data quality impair evidence-based road safety policy making. While many countries collect road safety data, the collection is not necessarily comprehensive. Further, many countries can be unaware of data gaps in their system, which prevents them from soundly analyzing their road safety problems. Therefore, road safety data definitions and collection methods must converge into standard international criteria, thus allowing for comparisons in space - across countries - and in time. This is the raison d’etre of regional road safety observatories, which have been developed, for example, in Latin America (OISEVI), Africa (ARSO), and Asia-Pacific (APRSO). They present an opportunity for joint regional efforts to improve, in a harmonized way, road safety data collection and analysis. Regional road safety observatories promote the adoption of a common set of road safety indicators based on common definitions and serve as an avenue to assist countries in improving the management of their crash data systems.

This document is designed to support reviewers in the assessment of road safety data collection; the complete range of safety data should be considered. This task can be complicated because collection of road safety data is often not achieved by activities dedicated to this purpose, but rather through piggybacks on other sources. For example, activity reports from police or hospitals are used to provide material for legal or medical purposes. The routines involved frequently have a long history in which gathering reliable and complete statistics has had secondary priority, at best. The various actors involved reflect the complex structure of a country’s judicial and executive system, which, generally, are not coordinated. Consequently, any review of the data collection process requires some “detective work.”

Download the document in English
Download the document in French
Download the document in Spanish

Road traffic crashes result in an estimated 1.35 million deaths and 50 million injuries worldwide per year with over 90 percent of these occurring in Low-Middle Income Countries (LMICs). Aside from the obvious pain and suffering this inflicts on individuals and communities, these deaths and injuries also place a large financial burden particularly on LMICs, by slowing economic growth.  

The scale of the current response to this continuing crisis does not match the size of the problem. In addition, limited road safety resources are often expended on ineffective or suboptimal interventions. While road safety knowledge has improved over recent decades, there is still a need to improve decision making when selecting and applying effective evidence-based road safety interventions. Effective interventions are those that reduce fatal and serious injuries.

The World Bank's Global Road Safety Facility (GRSF) has developed this evidence-based guide on “What Works and What Does Not Work” in road safety in response to the critical need for effective evidence-based solutions.

This guide has been prepared to help readers understand that not all road safety interventions are equally effective and that what appear to be “common-sense” approaches to selecting road safety interventions will often not be the best.  Although some provide benefits, others have very limited or even negative impacts, despite being commonly—and mistakenly—recommended or accepted. The guide offers a range of recommendations with a focus on interventions in LMICs, although the information may also be of relevance to all countries. The contents will be valuable to those working on road safety at policy or practitioner levels, including World Bank technical team leaders and others who seek to establish, expand, or improve road safety programs in LMICs.

The guide sets knowledge on evidence-based interventions within a “Safe System” context, providing advice on each of the Safe System pillars (road safety management, safe roads, safe speeds, safe vehicles, safe road users, and post-crash care) while recognizing that evidence-based solutions must be drawn from across pillars to produce effective road safety outcomes. At the core of this document is a summary table with an overview of beneficial and non-beneficial interventions based on sound scientific evidence. This is followed by more detailed information including case studies and references to the evidence base to support the summary.

Many safe road interventions are recommended for adoption, including integrated public transport, roadside and central barrier systems, medians, infrastructure to support appropriate operational speed for road users, roundabouts, grade separation and interventions to reduce exposure to risk at intersections, pedestrian footpaths and crossings, separated bicycle and motorcycle facilities, and traffic signs and line marking (including audio-tactile line marking). Some of these are highly effective, with up to a 70 or 80 percent reduction in fatalities and severe injuries (for example, safety barriers and roundabouts).

Various speed-related interventions also produce significant benefits, with some able to almost eliminate death and serious injury. Examples of effective speed interventions include traffic calming (including humps and chicanes), roundabouts, raised intersections and crossings, gateway treatments, lower speed limits (including 30 km/h (20 mph) zones for pedestrians) and speed cameras.

A variety of road user-based interventions have been implemented over many years, with effective examples including extensive supervised on-road practice and/or graduated licensing systems as part of the driver-licensing system, increased age for driving license eligibility, hazard perception training and testing, public education and campaigns as part of an integrated strategy (especially communicating enforcement to increase general deterrence), enforcement, penalties, alcohol interlocks, fatigue and speed monitoring, and increased helmet wearing rates.

Key vehicle-based interventions include applying minimum vehicle safety standards and vehicle ratings (through the Global New Car Assessment Program, or “NCAP”), seat belts, periodic vehicle maintenance, daytime running lights, under-run guards on trucks, Electronic Stability Control, and other advanced vehicle technologies.

Enhanced post-crash care can also produce better road safety outcomes, including systems to improve emergency response time, better emergency care, improved first aid skills for the public, and improved hospital care.

Equally important, the report also identifies clear examples where interventions are not effective. The worst of these are interventions that increase risk. These include increasing travel speed without improving quality of safety infrastructure, most forms of post-license driver and rider education and training, and many (but not all) forms of regular school-based driver education (such as those that seek to increase car-handling skills). The increase in risk is typically because such initiatives increase the level of confidence leading to an increase in risk taking. Other interventions that have no demonstrated safety benefits are to be avoided. These include license schemes through application or payment, training programs or education within schools that aim to improve road safety knowledge (including ad hoc visits by road safety experts or enthusiasts), and education campaigns conducted in isolation.

There are effective alternative interventions for each of these as described within this document, and these should be applied instead. It is extremely important that resources are not wasted on ineffective interventions on behalf of road safety but rather that evidence-based road safety interventions are employed.

There are a variety of documents available on the issue of road safety intervention effectiveness, many of which are referenced here. However, there are some key points of differences and added value in this guide, including a synthesis of the evidence on a broad range of interventions and a contrast between effective and noneffective interventions, allowing readers to compare options. Where noneffective interventions are identified, viable effective interventions are provided thereby supporting decision making. The guide also provides direct advice to those working in LMICs, drawing on key sources of information where this is available. Importantly, concise yet robust evidence is provided across each of the Safe System pillars.

There is a need to continue building the knowledge base on effective road safety interventions, particularly in LMICs where there are a number of gaps in knowledge. The contents of this guide represent a useful, up-to-date summary of current knowledge for application.

This guide has been prepared to assist a jurisdiction to determine the level of readiness to move to automated enforcement (AE). Speed cameras enforcing speed limits are a common application of AE and there are many systemic legal and operational elements that must be in place before AE can be effective. For example, an accurate image of a speeding vehicle, in the absence of robust driver licensing and vehicle registration systems, is of little road safety value. Importantly, automated speed enforcement should be considered as one part of a comprehensive speed management approach that includes road infrastructure and roadside policing as well. The management of speed is a fundamental element of the Safe System.

Aims of this document:

• To briefly identify the powerful practical value of AE in saving lives and reducing injuries.

• To identify issues and criteria to be considered before commencing automated enforcement. To identify steps to be taken to achieve readiness for automated enforcement. To identify issues to improve existing automated enforcement systems.

• To provide a checklist to ensure adequate consideration is given to issues to assess readiness to implement an AE system or improve an existing system.

Other illegal behaviours, including disobeying a red light signal, mobile or cellular phone use, incorrect lane use, and non-restraint use can also be detected using an automated enforcement approach. However, this document applies specifically to automated speed enforcement, because speed management requires significant attention worldwide and plays a critical role in reducing road traffic deaths and injuries.

Document also available in French, Portuguese, Vietnamese and Spanish.

This guide focuses on elements of safe road and roadside designs for road networks that can provide safe mobility to all road users

A substantial reduction in road deaths will only be feasible if concerted efforts are made, following the “Safe System” approach involving all elements of road safety, management, and delivery. This includes all pillars of the Safe System—starting from road safety management, safe roads and roadsides, safe speed, safe vehicles, safe road users, and post-crash care. This guide focuses on elements of safe road and roadside designs for road networks that can provide safe mobility to all road users, as well as complementary changes to improve speeds, vehicle safety, road user behaviors, and post-crash care. A balanced road design must take into account these complementary system elements to maximize safety benefits. The energy carried by a moving object is proportional to the square of its speed. A well-designed “forgiving roadside” ensures that this energy is dispersed in a crash, and as a result, less energy is transferred to the occupants.

Road infrastructure design plays a vital role in road safety outcomes. Safe infrastructure supports other road safety pillars by encouraging appropriate road user behavior (such as appropriate speed and correct lane position) and by providing a forgiving road environment if things go wrong. Poorly designed road infrastructure can give rise to dangerous road user behavior. One of the key realizations of the Safe System approach is that drivers make mistakes and will continue to do so, even if we can reduce how often these occur. This road user error has long been recognized as a significant contributor to poor road safety outcomes. However, roads of any given speed can be designed to reduce the likelihood of crashes occurring, and there is very clear evidence that the severity of outcomes when crashes do occur is significantly influenced by the road design. Even if a crash still occurs, improved road infrastructure can save many lives and prevent debilitating injuries.

The Safe System approach highlights that a shared response is required to address road safety. This means that road users will continue to take responsibility for their actions, for instance by being alert and compliant with road rules. However, it is also recognized that road managers and designers have a significant responsibility to provide a road system that protects all road users. This can be achieved through appropriate designs of roads.

Every year approximately 1.35 million people lose their lives due to road traffic crashes. In many road crashes, speed plays a key role. As a result, managing speed has taken on great importance in cities around the world.

An effective method for reducing speed and improving road safety, especially in high-risk areas, has been to establish low-speed zones. This Low-Speed Zone Guide presents strategies for planning, designing, building, and evaluating low-speed zones. The guide intends to equip communities and decision-makers with the tools to implement low-speed zones that will suit their specific context.

Highlights:

• Traffic crashes are a leading cause of death and serious injury worldwide; most notably, they are the leading cause of death and serious injury among young people aged 5–29. Higher motor vehicle speeds increase the likelihood and severity of crashes.

• Low-speed zones have emerged as one of the most promising strategies for speed management. They can be appropriate in many different contexts and at various scales, as exemplified by case studies of successful projects around the world.

• Low-speed zones in cities need to be well-planned, well-designed, and well-built, to maximize safety and other benefits.

• Physical traffic-calming measures and target speeds of 30 kilometers/hour (km/h) or lower have the greatest proven safety benefits.

• Key considerations for implementation include stakeholder engagement, site selection (including risk: pedestrian/vulnerable road user presence), enforcement, evaluation, and the adaptation of basic principles for low-speed zone design to the local context.

The Road Safety Management Capacity Reviews and Safe System Projects Guidelines have been designed to assist country road safety professionals, World Bank and regional development bank staff, international consultants, community groups, private sector organizations, and all other global, regional and country partners and stakeholders to conduct capacity reviews and prepare follow-up road safety projects in a variety of low and middle-income countries and investment settings.

The purpose of the Guidelines is to:

• Specify a management and investment framework to overcome institutional capacity barriers and support the successful implementation of road safety interventions;

• Provide practical procedures designed for application at a country level to accelerate knowledge transfer and sustainably scale up investment to improve road safety results;

• Ensure that institutional strengthening initiatives are properly sequenced and adjusted to the absorptive and learning capacity of the country concerned.

The Guidelines emphasize managing for results and the associated strengthening of country road safety management systems, with special attention being paid to the role of the lead road safety agency in ensuring institutional effectiveness and efficiency in program delivery. They highlight the importance of addressing all elements of the road safety management system, taking a staged approach to country road safety investment, and targeting the highest concentrations of deaths and injuries across the road network.

For more information visit this page.

This report is also available in:

French Spanish