Evolution and Typology of Accidents and Severity

Case Study:
Evolution and Typology of Accidents and Severity
October 2003
Authors:
Philippe Lejeune
Anne-Marie Ducassou
_________________________________________________________
Centre dtudes Techniques de lquipement du Sud-Ouest (C.E.T.E.),
France
Case Study:
Evolution and Typology of Accidents and Severity (CETE)
Table of Contents
Introduction .....................................................................................................................4
1.1 Limits of database ..................................................................................................... 4
1.2 Data ........................................................................................................................... 4
Methodological approach ..............................................................................................5

2.1 Time series analysis .................................................................................................. 5
2.2 Typological analysis .................................................................................................. 6
Variations of accident and killed numbers and severity from 1992 to 1997 .............8
3.1 Data and notation of indicators.................................................................................. 8
3.2 Accident number variations Na.................................................................................. 9
3.2.1
Results and analysis per country................................................................................9
3.2.2
Results and analysis per group of states..................................................................11
3.2.3
Results and global analysis of the whole EU............................................................12
3.3 Variations of number of killed Nk............................................................................. 13

3.3.1
Results and analysis per country..............................................................................13
3.3.2
Results and analysis per group of countries.............................................................14
3.3.3
Results and global analysis of the whole EU............................................................14
3.4 Variation of the severity of accidents....................................................................... 15

4
Typological analysis.....................................................................................................17
4.1 Pedestrian accidents ............................................................................................... 17
4.1.1
Data and notations....................................................................................................17
4.1.2
Results and analysis.................................................................................................18
4.2 Pedal cycle accidents .............................................................................................. 23

4.2.1
Data indicators and notations ...................................................................................23
4.2.2
Results and analysis.................................................................................................24
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................26
Annex 1: ACCIDENT TIME SERIES .............................................................................30
Annex 2: KILLED TIME SERIES ...................................................................................40
page 2 of 70
Case Study:
Annex 3: SEVERITY TIME SERIES ..............................................................................50
Annex 4: TYPOLOGY PEDAL CYCLISTS....................................................................58
10 Annex 5: TYPOLOGY PEDESTRIAN............................................................................64
page 3 of 70
Case Study:
1 Introduction
The following case study has two main purposes:
1. The measure and the comparison of the different levels of risk in EU in terms of accidents
and fatalities, over a period of 6 years.
2. The analysis of 2 topics: pedestrian accidents and pedal cycle accidents and fatalities.
In order to achieve these analyses, CARE +1 common variables have been treated with statistical tools.
1.1
Limits of database
Concerning the periods of data availability for the 15 EU Member States, CARE +1 provides
data (comparable variables) from 1991 to 2002.
However, the only period during which data are available over the 15 countries is '19921997'. It is a strong limitation.
Up to now the CARE +2 common variables and risk exposure data are not yet available.
1.2
Data
Taking into account the above data limitations, the following analysis have been achieved
over the period 1992-1997.
The main indicators analysed are:
For all accident types:
Number of accidents
Number of killed
Severity
Per topics:
Numbers and severity of pedestrian accidents
Numbers and severity of pedal cycle accidents
Rates of 'pedestrian accidents' weighted by population
First of all the analysis were performed per country.
Then it appeared interesting to analyse the accidents variations by country groups. The
country aggregation has been done according to the total number of accidents and killed. So
three groups were set up:
With
Na = number of accidents over six years

Nk = number of killed over six years
page 4 of 70
Case Study:
GROUP A
GROUP B
GROUP C
500 000 < Na and

20 000 < Nk
100 000< Na < 500 000
5 000 < Nk < 20 000
Na < 100 000
Nk < 5 000
GB, IT, FR, ES
BE, PT, NL, AT, GR
SV, DK, IE, FI, NI, LU
Global European road safety trends have been find out and used to extrapolate the following
years risk levels and severities.
2 Methodological approach
Specific statistical tools based on time series method and typological analysis, have been
used to carried out the results presented in this report.
The time series use the 'BUYS BALLOT' method and the typological analysis use the binomial law. Both provide a measure of confidence that can be placed in the results.
2.1
Time series analysis
The main purpose of time series technique consists in analysing the variations of the number
of accidents and fatalities over several years. Taking into account the random properties of
road accident occurrences this technique allows to identify the part of the road safety evolutions that can be considered as sustainable.
The variations of accident indicators over several years can be considered as the result of
three main components:
1. The sustainable trends
2. The seasonal variations mainly due to the traffic flows and meteorological variations
3. The instantaneous and unpredictable variations, which modify the normal evolution of
accident data.
Roughly speaking the time series analysis of the road safety data isolates the different accidentological components.
Two types of period can be analysed, monthly periods and yearly periods:
A) Yearly periods
The yearly periods allow the comparison over 5 or 10 years by the mean of trends generally
obtained by regression model and with a 90 % confidence interval
Linear model is Yt = (a + bt) + et
page 5 of 70
Case Study:
(a + bt): is the regression straight line where 'a' is the gradient

(et): is the remainder of the regression or the random part
The 't' of student allows state if the trend evolves significantly.
B) Monthly periods
The monthly period analysis is carried out by the means of 'seasonally adjusted' data. The
model used is the BUYS BALLOT model that adds to the yearly model the 'monthly season
coefficients'. The linear model can be summarised as follows:
Yt = a+ bt + Sm + et
Sm: seasonal coefficient depending on the month with the following constraints:
Average (yt) = average (a + bt)
Average (et) = 0
(Sm) = 0
The multiplying model considers the indicator Log (yt)
With yt = a(1 + b)t x Sm x (1 + et)
With
(sm) = 1
m
(at + b) and (et) as defined above.
2.2
Typological analysis1
The main purpose of the typological analysis method is to identify the type of crashes, the
road users or vehicles that have the highest level of risk and the highest level of severity. For
this purpose proportions, are calculated and most of them follow the Binomial law (for example type of accident, user, vehicle etc)
The probability to have (k) accidents of a given type among (n) accidents is
P(x=k) = Ckn * pk * (1-p)n-k
Let p be the accident proportion of this type over the total crashes observed
The test using the Binomial law is built up from this probability law.
The question is: in view of the traffic safety results over a studied area could we consider that
the proportion of a type of accident conforms to a value p0 taken as reference
Using this Binomial law, the following test is carried out by using significance test2:
It consists in testing the H0 hypothesis i.e. p= p0 against the opposite H1 hypothesis
i.e. p p0
1
Quoted from 'Statistique pour la scurit routire: SETRA octobre 1998'
a test of whether the alternative hypothesis H1 achieves the predetermined significance level in order to
be accepted in preference to the null hypothesis H0.
page 6 of 70
Case Study:
Let 0 be the probability to have n accidents on the given accident type under the H0 hypothesis i.e. p= p0 and considering that the ratio p=n/N follows the Binomial law B(p0,N) then
two cases arise
n If n/N p0 then: 0 = P(xn) =
P( x = k )
k =0
0 = C Nk p0 (1 p0 ) N k
k
(1)
k =0
o If n/N>p0 then 0 = P(xn) = 1 - P(x<n) =1-
n 1
P(x = k )
k =0
n 1
0 = 1 C Nk p0 (1 p0 ) N k
k
(2)
k =0
Results of the test
If
If
2 .5 % 0 < 5 %
then the test result is considered as "significant"(S)
Otherwise
then the test result is considered as "no significant " (NS)
< 2.5%
5%
then the test result is considered as "very significant " (VS)
In a general way the test performed is bilateral that is to say that it is possible to find out unusually high or low values
Therefore, the confidence threshold must be doubled because the test searches the unusually low and high values so, it is 5% for "very significant result" (VS) and 10% for "significant result" (S)
page 7 of 70
Case Study:
3 Variations of accident and killed numbers and severity from 1992

to 1997
3.1
Data and notation of indicators
This deals with the variations of accident number and severity over a period of 6 years
(1992-1997). This period is the only one during which the CARE accident data are available
over all the EU countries.
Variations have been analysed by the means of time series technique as presented in 2.2
in order to take into account the random property of accident occurrences.
For this purpose monthly accident data have been used to take into account the national
'seasonal variations' by calculating monthly 'seasonal coefficients' which are quite different
from a country to another one. So all the following results are analysed from 'seasonally adjusted' data calculated by the means of a linear regression, significance and 90 % confidence
interval.
A) Accidents
Na : accident number
)
Na : accident number 'seasonally adjusted'
Csa : 'seasonal coefficients' of accidents

B) Killed
Nk : killed number
)
Nk : killed number 'seasonally adjusted'
Csk : 'seasonal coefficients' of killed
C) Severity
s = 100(Nk/Na) the number of killed per 100 accidents

)
s = Severity ' seasonally adjusted'

Comment X
are 'seasonally adjusted' from the rates
and not calculated from the 'season-
ally adjusted' values Nk and Na because the 'seasonal coefficients' Csa and
Csk could be different, so .
s 100( Nk/Na )
) )
page 8 of 70
Case Study:
Comment Y
The variation of accident severity does not take into account of the national possible
underreporting of the slight road accidents. This type of inaccuracies is included in the
CARE database.
Therefore, concerning the accident severity rates (as it calculated 100(Nk/Na) could be
biased by the underreporting. The assessment of the national underreporting would allow more accurate comparisons with regard to road accident severity variations.
3.2
3.2.1
Accident number variations Na

Results and analysis per country
Time series have been calculated over the period of six years 1992-1997, per country in regard to the monthly accident number. All the results are presented in the annexes.
It is interesting to analyse the main component (cf 2.1) which is the linear trend obtained by
the least square method. The 15 EU Member States can be classified into three categories:
Increasing trend
Decreasing trend
Flat trend
1. The first class consists of the five following countries: GB, IT, GR, IE and NI, their
own increasing trend is statistically 'very significant'.
Italy
Monthly time serie
Number of accidents
20000
18000
16000
14000
12000
10/1997
7/1997
4/1997
1/1997
7/1996
10/1996
4/1996
1/1996
10/1995
7/1995
4/1995
1/1995
7/1994
10/1994
4/1994
1/1994
10/1993
7/1993
4/1993
1/1993
7/1992
10/1992
4/1992
1/1992
10000
Years - months
Srie CVS
Valeurs inf de l'intervalle de confiance 90%
Courbe de tendance
Valeurs sup de l'intervalle de confiance 90%
Srie CVS = Time serie values seasonally adjusted

Courbe de tendance = Trend
Valeurs inf de l'intervalle de confiance 90 % = Lower values of 90% confidence interval
Valeurs sup de l'intervalle de confiance 90 % = Upper values of 90% confidence interval
Among these states, IT has a high 'average yearly growth rate G', in comparison
with the other states.
page 9 of 70
Case Study:
2. The second class consists of the five following countries: BE, AT, DK, LU and FR,
their decreasing trend is also statistically very significant at the same level.
As example:
4100
3600
3100
7/1997
10/1997
4/1997
1/1997
10/1996
7/1996
4/1996
1/1996
7/1995
10/1995
4/1995
1/1995
10/1994
7/1994
4/1994
1/1994
7/1993
10/1993
4/1993
1/1993
10/1992
7/1992
4/1992
2600
1/1992
Number of accidents
Austria
Monthly time serie
Years - months
Srie CVS
Courbe de tendance

3. The third class consists of the five last following countries ES, PT, NL, SV and FI.
Their own trend is almost flat and without statistical significant trend.
For example:
Portugal
Monthly time serie
Number of accidents
5000
4750
4500
4250
4000
3750
3500
3250
10/1997
7/1997
4/1997
1/1997
10/1996
7/1996
4/1996
1/1996
10/1995
7/1995
4/1995
1/1995
10/1994
7/1994
4/1994
1/1994
10/1993
7/1993
4/1993
1/1993
10/1992
7/1992
4/1992
1/1992
3000
Years - months
Srie CVS
Courbe de tendance

page 10 of 70
Case Study:
3.2.2
Results and analysis per group of states
As reported above, the groups A, B and C (classified according to their total number of accidents and killed) have been examined:
The different time series are presented in annexe. The only group B (BE, PT, NL, AT, GR)
has a decreasing trend. In this group, GR is the only country having an increasing trend.
Groupe B
Monthly time serie
Number of accidents
19000
18000
17000
16000
10/1997
7/1997
4/1997
1/1997
10/1996
7/1996
4/1996
1/1996
10/1995
7/1995
4/1995
1/1995
7/1994
10/1994
4/1994
1/1994
10/1993
7/1993
4/1993
1/1993
10/1992
7/1992
4/1992
1/1992
15000
Years - months
Srie CVS
Courbe de tendance
page 11 of 70
Case Study:
3.2.3
Results and global analysis of the whole EU
The time series achieved with the total monthly numbers of accidents have a slight increasing trend statistically no significant.
E U Members States
Monthly time serie
Number of accidents
82000
78000
74000
70000
Years - months
Srie CVS
10/1997
7/1997
4/1997
1/1997
10/1996
7/1996
4/1996
1/1996
10/1995
7/1995
4/1995
1/1995
10/1994
7/1994
4/1994
1/1994
10/1993
7/1993
4/1993
1/1993
7/1992
10/1992
4/1992
1/1992
66000
Courbe de tendance

page 12 of 70
Case Study:
Results and analysis per country

All the detailed results are presented in the annexes. The results can be summarized as follow:
According to the number of accident trends the EU countries could be classified
into three classes.
On the other hand according to the fatality trends 14 countries are decreasing.
Among these 14 decreasing trends, 11 are statistically 'very significant' or 'significant' and 3 are 'non significant'.
Only IE has a significant -increasing fatality trend with an increasing accident
trend.
Ireland
Monthly time serie
60
50
40
30
20
10/1997
7/1997
4/1997
1/1997
10/1996
7/1996
4/1996
1/1996
10/1995
7/1995
4/1995
1/1995
7/1994
10/1994
4/1994
1/1994
10/1993
7/1993
4/1993
1/1993
10/1992
7/1992
4/1992
10
1/1992
3.3.1
Variations of number of killed Nk
Number of killed
3.3
Years - months
Srie CVS
Courbe de tendance

page 13 of 70
Case Study:
3.3.2
Results and analysis per group of countries
Obviously according to the results reported above, the three groups A, B and C have decreasing trends. These trends are statistically 'very significant'. For example:
Groupe A
Monthly time serie
2700
Number of killed
2500
2300
2100
1900
1700
10/1997
7/1997
4/1997
1/1997
10/1996
7/1996
4/1996
1/1996
10/1995
7/1995
4/1995
1/1995
7/1994
10/1994
4/1994
1/1994
10/1993
7/1993
4/1993
1/1993
10/1992
7/1992
4/1992
1/1992
1500
Years - months
Srie CVS
Courbe de tendance

Results and global analysis of the whole EU

In the same way, the number of killed in the EU has a decreasing statistically very
significant trend.
E U Members States
Monthly time serie
4000
Number of killed
3600
3200
2800
10/1997
7/1997
4/1997
1/1997
10/1996
7/1996
4/1996
1/1996
10/1995
7/1995
4/1995
1/1995
10/1994
7/1994
4/1994
1/1994
10/1993
7/1993
4/1993
1/1993
10/1992
7/1992
4/1992
2400
1/1992
3.3.3
Years - months
Srie CVS
Courbe de tendance

page 14 of 70
Case Study:
A rough extrapolation (from 1997 to 2007) of the 15 EU Member States the linear
trend obtained by the least square method leads to a 50 % cutting-down of the
number of killed between 1992 and 2007.
More accurate extrapolations require national accident data from 1997 to 2002.
3.4
Variation of the severity of accidents
The 'severity' indicator defined as '100 Nk/Na' is relevant because comparable between the
15 EU Member States.
14 countries (excepted LU) have a significant decreasing severity trend and almost of them
are statistically very significant.
For example GB has the following trend:
SEVERITY GB
2
1.95
1.9
1.85
1.8
1.75
1.7
1.65
1.6
1.55
1.5
1.45
1.4
1.35
1.3
1 992 janv ier

fv rier
m ars
av r il
m ai
juin
juillet
a ot
s e ptem bre
oc tobre
nov embre
dc em bre
1993 janv ier
fv rier
mars
a v ril
m ai
juin
juillet
aot
s eptembre
oc tob re
n ov em bre
dc embre
1994 ja nv ier
fv rier
ma rs
av r il
mai
juin
juillet
ao t
s eptem bre
octobre
nov em bre
dc em bre
1995 janv ier
fv rier
m ars
av r il
m ai
juin
juillet
a ot
s e ptem bre
oc tobre
nov embre
dc e mbre
1996 jan v ier
fv rier
mars
a v ril
m ai
juin
ju illet
aot
s eptemb re
oc tob re
n ov em bre
d c emb re
1997 janv ier
fv rier
m ars
av r il
ma i
juin
juillet
ao t
s eptem bre
octobre
nov em bre
dc em bre
1.25
Sr ie s CV S / Tendan c e av ec inte rvalles de c onf ianc e 90 %

rg res s ion, modle add itif
Pag e 1/1

page 15 of 70
Case Study:
This result is obtained in spite of the increasing accident trend of some countries.
LU has a decreasing trend for number of accidents and killed nevertheless the severity is
increasing (statistically non significant result).
SEVERITY LU
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1992 janvier
fvrier
mars
avril
mai
juin
juillet
aot
septembre
octobre
novembre
dcembre
1993 janvier
fvrier
mars
avril
mai
juin
juillet
aot
septembre
octobre
novembre
dcembre
1994 janvier
fvrier
mars
avril
mai
juin
juillet
aot
septembre
octobre
novembre
dcembre
1995 janvier
fvrier
mars
avril
mai
juin
juillet
aot
septembre
octobre
novembre
dcembre
1996 janvier
fvrier
mars
avril
mai
juin
juillet
aot
septembre
octobre
novembre
dcembre
1997 janvier
fvrier
mars
avril
mai
juin
juillet
aot
septembre
octobre
novembre
dcembre
Sries CVS / Tendance avec intervalles de confiance 90 %

rgression, modle additif
Page 1/1

page 16 of 70
Case Study:
4 Typological analysis
The main purpose of this consists in measuring and comparing the risk levels in terms of
accident occurrences and severity of pedestrian and pedal cycle accidents.
Taking into account the availability of the CARE data (CARE +1 comparable accident variables), the following indicators have been analysed over the period 1992-1997:
Pedestrian accidents (number and severity)
Pedal cycle accidents (number and severity)
Severity of all accident types
4.1
4.1.1
Pedestrian accidents
Data and notations
The six following indicators have been calculated:

Natot: total number of road accidents
Nap:
number of accidents involving at least one pedestrian
Nkp:
number of killed pedestrians
ap:
pedestrian accident rate = Nap/Natot:
kpa:
accident severity rate of pedestrian accidents = Nkp/Nap
app:
rate of pedestrian accidents weighted by the population = Nap/population
Comment concerning app:

Due to the fact that each inhabitant is a road user at least as pedestrian, the rate app can
be considered as a comparable variable over the EU countries because the population
can be considered as a risk exposure data with regard to pedestrian accidents.
page 17 of 70
Case Study:
4.1.2
Results and analysis
Accident typology and the statistical significance have been assessed considering the European average rates as relevant 3. It is a first approximation that could be completed by further
analysis not achieved in this report.
a) Number of pedestrian accidents (Nap)
50000
Nap pedestrian accidents

(1992-1997) Yearly average
46253
45000
40000
35000
30000
25000
21324
20000
15590
15000
13213
9770
10000
4936
5000
4280
4196
3095
1570
1488
1210
1108
1064
150
NL
IE
SV
NI
DK
FI
LU
0
GB
FR
IT
ES
PT
AT
BE
GR
Graph 1
Nap: the number of pedestrian accidents is greatly biased by the national number of inhabitants of each country. Therefore, it is not relevant to draw any conclusion in terms of
risk level comparisons concerning the pedestrian accidents over the EU Member
States (see graph 1).
Nevertheless it is possible to compare the 'stake' of the pedestrian accidents between
the countries over 6 years 1992-1997 (see annexes, chapters 6 to 10).
If the country group average rates used do not change significantly as reference rates instead of the
European average rates the classification and the statistical significance of the results.
page 18 of 70
Case Study:
b) Rate of pedestrian accidents (app) per 109 inhabitants

The number of inhabitants can be considered as an available and relevant risk exposure
data for pedestrian accidents (each inhabitant of a country is at least a road user as pedestrian). The population is a very important bias for the pedestrian accident see annexes, chapters 6 to 10).
The classification of countries depends on the choice of criterion, and in this case the most
relevant indicator is:
app: the number of pedestrian accidents per billion of inhabitants

EU Member states can be divided into three classes with regard to pedestrian accidents: rate
app (see graph 2)

High level:
Medium:
Low level:
app 3 (PT, GB, NI, AT)

2 app < 3 (IE, BE, GR, FR, LU, ES)
app < 2 (IT, DK, FI, NL, SV)
app
9
Rate of pedestrian accidents per 10 inhabitants

6
5,4
4,9
4,3
3,7
2,5
2,5
2,4
2,1
2,1
2,0
1,6
1,3
1,2
1,2
1,0
DK
FI
NL
SV
1
0
PT
GB
NI
AT
IE
BE
GR
FR
LU
ES
IT
Graph 2
page 19 of 70
Case Study:
c) Rate of pedestrian accidents ap
ap =
Nap/Natot provides a first comparable indicator that is the rate of number of

pedestrian accident per road accident. The EU Member States can be divided
into three classes of pedestrian accidents rate (see graph 3)
High level: ap 17 %
(IE, PT, GB, GR, NI)
Medium: 10 % ap < 17 %
(FR, ES, FI, LU, DK, AT)
Low level: ap < 10 %
(SV, IT, BE, NL)
ap
Rate of pedestrian accidents
25
20,9
20
20,1
19,8
18,3
17,7
16,1
15,8
15
15,1
13,5
13,2
12,1
9,6
10
8,8
8,2
7,5
IT
BE
NL
5
0
IE
PT
GB
GR
NI
FR
ES
FI
LU
DK
AT
SV
Graph 3
ap is a first assessment of the pedestrian accidents that is still biased by the population level
but not as much as the values Nap.
page 20 of 70
Case Study:
d) Severity of pedestrian accidents Nkp, kpa

As for the number of accidents, the number of killed pedestrians is not a relevant risk level
indicator for comparisons over countries because it is also biased by the number of inhabitants. So the results (see annexes, chapters 6 to 10) show only the stake in terms of yearly
average numbers of fatalities per country.
It is a reason why the severity has been defined as follows (kpa = Nkp/Nap number of killed
pedestrian per pedestrian accidents) which is a comparable severity indicator over EU Member States (see graph 4).
1 200
Nkp number of pedestrian killed in accidents

(1992-1997) Yearly average
1 134 1 120
1 041 1 008
1 000
800
621
600
459
400
197
200
179
131
122
102
89
83
SV
FI
43
10
NI
LU
0
FR
GB
ES
IT
PT
GR
AT
BE
NL
IE
DK
Graph 4
page 21 of 70
Case Study:
The classification according to the severity is different that the classification according to the
number of accidents weighted by the population (app). The severity has been classified into
three classes (see graph 5):
High level:
Medium:
Low level:
kpa 7
5 kpa < 7
kpa < 5
(GR, DK, ES, FI, IE)

(LU, IT, PT, SV, FR)
(NL, BE, AT, NI, GB)
kpa
12
Severity of pedestrian accidents

10,9
10
9,2
7,9
7,8
7,8
6,5
6,5
6,4
6,0
5,3
4,2
4,2
4,0
3,6
2,4
2
0
GR
DK
ES
FI
IE
LU
IT
PT
SV
FR
NL
BE
AT
NI
GB
Graph 5
That means that the level of risk in terms of severity is different over the countries and furthermore 'less pedestrian accidents' does not mean 'less of fatalities'. Both rates have to be
calculated and compared.
For some countries DK, ES, FI, IT and SV, the severity of pedestrian accidents rate (kpa) is
higher than the pedestrian accidents rate (ap). That means that the pedestrian accidents
are more sever ; few accidents but with a high severity.
In inverse order for some countries as PT, AT, NI and GB the severity of pedestrian accidents rate (kpa) is in lower than the accident rate (ap), many accidents but with a low severity level.
page 22 of 70
Case Study:
e) Statistical assessment and significance

The statistical significances have been calculated to make sure that the above assessments
are not due to the random property of accident occurrences or random variations. As presented above the method consists in applying statistical test to accidents and fatality in order
to make sure that the difference (ap, kpa) between the countries is statistically significant
and not due to random variations.
Concerning the pedestrian accidents:
IE, PT, GB, GR, NI, FR, ES and FI have pedestrian accident rates significantly
higher than the European average with 90 % confidence interval.
DK, AT, SV, IT, BE and NL have pedestrian accident rates significantly lower
than the European average with 90 % confidence interval,
Only LU rate is not significant.
Concerning the severity rate of pedestrian accidents:
GR, DK, ES, FI, IE, IT, PT and FR have a significant high level with 90 % confidence interval
SV, NL, BE, AT, NI and GB have a low level of severity
only LU severity rate is no significant
Comment:
These above statistical classifications and significances are approximately the same if
the country group reference values are used instead of the European reference values
4.2
4.2.1
Pedal cycle accidents

Data indicators and notations
Taking into account the CARE variable availability (CARE +1) the following indicators
have been considered for each country:
Natot: total number of road accidents
Nac:
number of pedal cycle accidents
Nkc:
number of pedal cyclists killed
ac =
Nac/Natot: pedal cycle accident rate
kca = Nkc/Nac: severity rate of pedal cycle accidents

For the time being relevant risk exposure data for pedal cycles are not still available in
a comparable form over the EU countries, therefore, only the severity rates are relevant
for comparative tests.
The most relevant and comparable risk exposure data would be the national traffic
flows of pedal cycles and the number of pedal cycles.
page 23 of 70
Case Study:
4.2.2
Results and analysis

a) Number and rates of pedal cycle accidents Nac, ac
The number of pedal cycle accidents is greatly biased by the pedal cycle traffic in each country, so it is not relevant to draw any conclusion in terms of level of risk comparison concerning this mode of transport over EU member states. Nevertheless, it is possible to compare
the rate of pedal cycle accident ac (ac = Nac/Natot).
The pedal cycle accidents are obviously strongly linked to the use of this mode of transport;
there are three classes of rates (see graph 7):
ac 20
High rates DK, NL, FI, SV with a high level of use of pedal cycle:
15 ac < 20
Medium rates for AT, BE, GB, IE:
ac < 10
Low rates for FR, IT, NI, LU, ES, PT, GR:
ac
Accident rate of pedal cycle
35
30
29,5
28,8
25
19,7
20
19,4
14,3
15
14,0
10,6
10
10,2
5,8
5,1
5,1
3,5
3,4
3,3
LU
ES
PT
1,9
0
DK
NL
FI
SV
AT
BE
GB
IE
FR
IT
NI
GR
Graph 7
b) Severity rate of pedal cycle accidents kc

The severity rate kca = 100 (Nkc/Na)c has been chosen to assess and compare the pedal
cycle accident severity. It is a comparable indicator over the EU countries which is distributed
among three classes of accident severity (kc is the number of killed pedal cyclists per 100
pedal cycle accidents) (see graph 8)
High level of severity:
kc 4 (GR, PT, FI, IT, ES, FR)
Medium level of severity: 2 kc < 4 (LU, IE, DK, NL)

Low level of severity:
kc < 2 (SV, BE, NI, AT, GB)
page 24 of 70
Case Study:
kca
8
Severity rate of pedal cycle accidents
7,2
7
5,7
4,8
4,8
4,7
4,6
3,6
3,4
3,1
2,1
1,9
1,8
1,5
1,4
0,8
0
GR
PT
FI
IT
ES
FR
IE
LU
DK
NL
SV
BE
NI
AT
GB
Graph 8
c) Statistical assessment and significance

As presented above the random property of accident occurrence requires the use of a statistical test to make sure that the difference between the national results is statistically significant and not due to random variations.
Only the severity can be tested because as explained above the number of pedal cycle accidents is too biased by the number and traffic flows of pedal cycles that are too different over
the EU countries.
Concerning the severity rate of pedal cycle accidents the countries are distributed among
three classes (according to the European average value) with 90 % confidence interval see
annexes, chapters 6 to 10)
Very significant high level of severity for GR, PT, FI, IT, ES, FR and IE
No significant difference for LU, DK and NL
Very significant low level of severity for SV, BE, NI, AT and GB
page 25 of 70
Case Study:
5 Conclusion
A) Concerning the evolutions
a)
Accident time series

5 countries (GB, IT, GR, IE, NI) have significant increasing accident trends
5 countries (AT, DK, LU, BE, FR) have significant decreasing accident trends
5 countries (ES, PT, NL, SV, FI) have flat accident trends (no significant)
b)
Killed time series

On the other hand, 14 countries have very significant decreasing killed trends and only IE has a significant increasing trend
c)
Severity
14 countries have significant decreasing trends; only LU has an increasing trend
d)
The linear trend of the total number of killed in EU obtained by the least square method leads to a 50 % cutting down from 1992 to 2007.
B) Concerning the typological analysis

Pedestrian accidents and severity rates are very contrasted. There are countries with a significant high level of risk but the countries constituting these classes are not the same in both
cases accidents/severity. These results are provided with a measure of the 90 % confidence
interval.
According to this significance the results can be summarised as follows:
Pedestrian accident rate (ap weighted by the total national number of road accident) IE, PT, GB, GR and NI have a high level of accidents
Pedestrian accident rate (app weighted by the populations), PT, GB, NI and AT
have a high level of accident occurrences
Severity rate of pedestrian accident (kp number of killed pedestrian per pedestrian accident), GR, DK, ES, FI and IE have a high level of severity
page 26 of 70
Case Study:
ap
ap - kpa
kpa
Accident and severity rate of pedestrian accidents
25
20,9
20,1
20
19,8
18,3
17,7
16,1
15,8
15
15,1
13,5
13,2
10,9
10
7,8
7,9
6,4
7,8
5,3
9,6
6,5
6,0
8,8
6,5
8,2
4,2
4,0
3,6
2,4
12,1
9,2
7,5
4,2
0
IE
PT
GB
GR
NI
FR
ES
FI
LU
DK
AT
SV
IT
BE
NL
Graph 6
Finally this first study underscores the importance of a multi criterion analysis of the road
safety assessment and therefore the usefulness of road safety indicators, which are calculated using several different comparable and disaggregated accident variables.
So the relevance of the road safety analysis will be improved when the CARE 2 variables
and risk exposure data are available.
Pedal cycle accidents and severity rates are very contrasted:
Concerning the pedal cycle accident rates, the results a too strongly biased by the
different level of pedal cycle use over, the EU countries. So there is not relevant and
comparable level of risk in terms of numbers of pedal cycles
Concerning the severity of pedal cycle accidents and according to 90 % confidence

interval the results can be summarised as follows (see graph 9).
The distribution of the countries with regard to the severity (kc) is very different
of the distribution of the accident rate (ac).
One observes that the DK, NL, SV which have a high level rate of pedal cycle
accidents have a low or medium level of severity
Only FI have both high level rates accidents and severity
In inverse order FR, IT, LU, ES, PT and GR that have a low rate of pedal cycle
accident, with a high level of severity.
Only NI has the two rates (accidents and severity) at the same low level of risk.
page 27 of 70
Case Study:
ac
ac - kc
Rates of accidents and killed pedal cyclists
35
30
kc
29,5
28,8
25
19,7
20
19,4
14,3
15
14,0
10,6
10
5
4,8
3,1
2,1
DK
NL
1,9
1,4
1,8
0,8
AT
BE
GB
10,2
7,2
5,8
5,7
5,1
4,7
4,8 5,1
4,6
3,6
3,5
3,4 3,4
3,3
1,9
1,5
0
FI
SV
IE
FR
IT
NI
LU
ES
PT
GR
Graph 9
Finally it seems that the severity rates are in inverse ratio to the cycle traffic flow.
So, the conclusion could be that the road users who are used to sharing the road with pedal
cycle take more care of them.
C) Concerning CARE database
2 of the Asteryx purposes consist in:
'Analysing the capabilities and limitation of CARE and its overall potential added value
for road safety research and community'
'Detecting some EU Member States specific characteristics in accidents patterns using
the list of variables made available in CARE PLUS'
According to these purposes the analysis presented above have been achieved using CARE
+1 common variables and two statistical tools, time series and typological analyses concerning pedestrian and pedal cyclist accidents.
1. The typological analysis underscores how a disaggregated accident database is required
and matters a great deal for safety research in road safety bringing a real added value.
The pedestrian and pedal cyclists safety have been analysed in this report as example
but many other topics could be examined and obviously the potential added value for
road safety research European community depends on the number of CARE available
and comparable variables.
Therefore, the CARE +2 common variables will increase significantly the road safety capacity for analysis accident and detecting some common specific circumstances in the
high level risk accidents.
2. Concerning the evolution, road safety in Europe has been assessed by the means of time
series which required monthly accident data over a period of at least 6 years. Only CARE
database enables to do such temporally analysis.
In this report only the number of accidents and fatalities have been examined. Furthermore, the CARE disaggregated accident data properties make possible to cross the typo-
page 28 of 70
Case Study:
logical results with the time series analysis. This method could be undertaken in further
studies in order to analyse specific accident types with their own evolutions over several
years.
3. In spite of this important accident analysis, an exhaustive road safety comparison over
EU Member States remains unsolved because European risk exposure data are still unavailable. It is a great deal that should be done to improve and widen the CARE accident
database potentialities and also provide more relevant and accurate results for use in
road safety decision making at an European level.
page 29 of 70
Case Study:
6 Annex 1: ACCIDENT TIME SERIES

EUROPE ACCIDENTS
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
Seasonal
Coefficient
-8002,47
-12219,20
-4728,77
-3758,17
2968,42
5548,35
7195,12
2152,05
3261,81
6298,74
2344,01
-1059,89
a = 72440,986
b = 21,736
Average yearly growth rate G
Standard deviation
Occurrence probability of accident
Trend significativity
260,831
2321,749
1,628
NS
Seasonal Coefficients
10000
5000
0
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus sept
oct
nov
dec
-5000
-10000
-15000
79000
77000
Time serie values seasonally

adjusted
Trend
75000
73000
71000
Lower values of 90%

confidence interval
Upper values of 90%
confidence interval
69000
67000
01
/0
1/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
0 1 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
0 1 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
01 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97
65000
GROUP A ACCIDENTS
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
Seasonal
Coefficient
-4650,41
-7686,22
-2699,19
-2420,50
1459,20
3095,72
4499,92
-558,06
1480,30
4409,16
2729,53
340,55
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
a = 51043,756
b = 31,973
Standard deviation
383,674
1788,304
3,109
VS
6000
4000
2000
0
-2000
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus sept
oct
nov
dec
-4000
-6000
-8000
-10000
57500
55500
53500

adjusted
Trend
51500
49500
47500
Upper values of 90% confidence

interval
01
/
01
/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
01 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97
45500
Lower values of 90% confidence

interval
page 30 of 70
Case Study:
GROUP B ACCIDENTS
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
a = 17654,239
b = -13,608
Standard deviation
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
Seasonal
Coefficient
-2892,05
-3873,28
-1450,34
-787,56
1289,38
2099,99
2298,26
2141,70
1452,98
1564,75
-471,64
-1372,20
-163,298
578,782
4,089
VS
3000
2000
1000
0
janu
-1000
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-2000
-3000
-4000
-5000
19000
18000

adjusted
17500
Trend
18500
17000
16500

interval
16000
15500

interval
15000
01/01/92
01/04/92
01/07/92
01/10/92
01/01/93
01/04/93
01/07/93
01/10/93
01/01/94
01/04/94
01/07/94
01/10/94
01/01/95
01/04/95
01/07/95
01/10/95
01/01/96
01/04/96
01/07/96
01/10/96
01/01/97
01/04/97
01/07/97
01/10/97
GROUP C ACCIDENTS
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
Seasonal
Coefficient
-460,00
-659,70
-579,24
-550,11
219,85
352,64
396,94
568,40
328,53
324,83
86,12
-28,25
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
a = 3742,992
b = 3,371
Standard deviation
40,455
215,370
2,722
VS
800
600
400
200
0
-200
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-400
-600
-800

adjusted
Trend
interval
interval
01
/0
1/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
01 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97
4600
4400
4200
4000
3800
3600
3400
3200
3000
page 31 of 70
Case Study:
AT ACCIDENTS
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
Seasonal
Coefficient
-935,62
-1058,57
-612,03
-318,16
511,05
635,76
954,47
786,84
442,05
352,59
-207,20
-551,16
a = 3690,229
b = -7,708
Standard deviation
-92,495
187,209
7,160
VS
1500
1000
500
0
-500
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus sept
oct
nov
dec
-1000
-1500
4300
4100
3900
3700
3500
3300
3100
2900
2700
2500

adjusted
Trend
interval
01
/
01
/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
01 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97

interval
BE ACCIDENTS
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
Seasonal
Coefficient
-469,65
-842,37
-239,92
-249,30
328,98
479,76
-27,46
146,83
380,61
542,06
78,84
-128,38
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
a = 4691,569
b = -9,449
Standard deviation
-113,388
220,357
7,457
VS
1,2
800
600
1
400
0,8
200
0
0,6
-200
0,4
-400
-600
0,2
-800
0
-1000
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
july
augus sept
oct
nov
dec

adjusted
Trend
interval
interval
01
/
01
/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
01 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97
5300
5100
4900
4700
4500
4300
4100
3900
3700
3500
june
page 32 of 70
Case Study:
DK ACCIDENTS
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
Seasonal
Coefficient
-101,81
-173,95
-111,26
-83,06
47,46
52,15
51,01
133,37
58,56
60,42
67,28
-0,19
a = 740,941
b = -1,192
Standard deviation
-14,310
48,293
4,294
VS
150
100
50
0
-50
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-100
-150
-200
900
850
800
750
700
650
600
550
500
450
400

adjusted
Trend
interval
01
/0
1/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
01 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97

interval
ES ACCIDENTS
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
Seasonal
Coefficient
-632,10
-843,60
-84,59
-161,26
281,08
301,08
1046,75
622,59
-86,74
75,93
-327,40
-191,73
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
a = 6841,851
b = 3,164
Standard deviation
37,967
414,345
1,328
NS
1500
1000
500
0
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus sept
oct
nov
dec
-500
-1000
8500
8000
7500

adjusted
Trend
7000
6500
6000

interval
01
/0
1/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
01 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97
5500

interval
page 33 of 70
Case Study:
FI ACCIDENTS
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
Seasonal
Coefficient
-75,08
-140,16
-162,92
-159,50
38,57
99,32
151,23
183,81
93,89
36,81
-50,11
-15,87
a = 584,884
b = 0,087
Standard deviation
1,043
82,424
0,183
NS
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
800
750
700
650
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
sept
oct
nov
dec

adjusted
Trend
interval
01
/0
1/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
0 1 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
01 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97

interval
FR ACCIDENTS
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
Seasonal
Coefficient
-888,04
-1831,71
-825,20
-681,87
229,47
1014,97
738,97
-526,19
508,48
1451,98
488,48
320,65
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
a = 11990,129
b = -25,169
Standard deviation
-302,033
468,183
9,349
VS
2000
1500
1000
500
0
-500
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus sept
oct
nov
dec
-1000
-1500
-2000

adjusted
Trend
interval
interval
01
/0
1/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
01 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
0 1 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97
13500
13000
12500
12000
11500
11000
10500
10000
9500
9000
8500
page 34 of 70
Case Study:
GR ACCIDENTS
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
Seasonal
Coefficient
-428,01
-454,69
-273,37
-127,38
93,95
303,44
610,76
344,92
177,57
135,90
-201,78
-181,29
a = 1784,367
b = 3,343
Standard deviation
40,121
95,697
6,076
VS
800
600
400
200
0
-200
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-400
-600
2300
2200
2100
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500

adjusted
Trend
interval
01
/
01
/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
01 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97

interval
GB ACCIDENTS
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
Seasonal
Coefficient
-939,63
-2195,48
-919,17
-1496,19
-144,21
-198,06
530,42
-46,93
258,21
1624,86
2259,01
1267,16
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
a = 19101,019
b = 10,686
Standard deviation
128,236
720,806
2,578
VS
3000
2000
1000
0
-1000
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus sept
oct
nov
dec
-2000
-3000

adjusted
Trend
interval
interval
01
/0
1/
9
01
2
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
01 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97
21500
21000
20500
20000
19500
19000
18500
18000
17500
17000
16500
page 35 of 70
Case Study:
IT ACCIDENTS
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
Seasonal
Coefficient
-2190,64
-2815,44
-870,23
-81,19
1092,85
1977,73
2183,77
-607,52
800,35
1256,39
309,44
-1055,52
a = 13110,756
b = 43,292
Standard deviation
519,505
872,068
8,633
VS
3000
2000
1000
0
-1000
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus sept
oct
nov
dec
-2000
-3000
-4000
19000
18000
17000
16000
15000
14000
13000
12000
11000
10000

adjusted
Trend
interval
01
/0
1/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
0 1 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
01 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97

interval
IE ACCIDENTS
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
Seasonal
Coefficient
-57,67
-60,15
-7,46
-24,78
9,58
-17,90
67,96
21,81
16,00
47,19
28,54
-23,10
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
a = 497,504
b = 3,479
Standard deviation
41,743
58,739
10,298
VS
80
60
40
20
0
-20
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-40
-60
-80
900
800
700

adjusted
Trend
600
500
400

interval
01
/
01
/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
01 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97
300

interval
page 36 of 70
Case Study:
LU ACCIDENTS
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
Seasonal
Coefficient
-10,53
-15,33
-7,30
-4,10
11,77
4,64
14,84
-9,80
-0,60
5,77
-1,03
11,67
a = 99,875
b = -0,199
Standard deviation
-2,393
10,675
3,248
VS
20
15
10
5
0
-5
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-10
-15
-20
130
adjusted
120
110
Trend
100
90

interval
80
70

interval
01
/
01
/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
01 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97
60
NI ACCIDENTS
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
Seasonal
Coefficient
-5,63
-4,68
-1,73
-38,45
14,67
-28,21
-58,93
-27,31
27,64
34,09
65,04
23,49
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
a = 537,614
b = 0,882
Standard deviation
10,588
45,259
3,390
VS
80
60
40
20
0
-20
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-40
-60
-80
700
650
600

adjusted
Trend
550
500
450

interval
01
/0
1/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
01 95
/0
1/
0 1 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97
400

interval
page 37 of 70
Case Study:
NL ACCIDENTS
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
Seasonal
Coefficient
-554,68
-845,94
-256,03
62,38
382,95
632,35
109,59
54,83
417,57
380,47
-4,79
-378,71
a = 3407,414
b = 0,761
Standard deviation
9,133
205,519
0,644
NS
800
600
400
200
0
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus sept
oct
nov
dec
4100
adjusted
3900
3700
Trend
3500
interval
3300
3100

interval
01
/
01
/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
01 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97
2900
PT ACCIDENTS
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
Seasonal
Coefficient
-504,10
-671,71
-68,99
-155,10
-27,54
48,68
650,90
808,29
35,18
153,74
-136,71
-132,65
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
a = 4080,660
b = -0,556
Standard deviation
-6,669
220,688
0,438
NS
1000
800
600
400
200
0
-200
-400
-600
-800
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
4700
4500
4300

adjusted
Trend
4100
3900
3700

interval
01
/
01
/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
01 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97
3500

interval
page 38 of 70
Case Study:
SV ACCIDENTS
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
Seasonal
Coefficient
-209,28
-265,43
-288,58
-240,23
97,79
242,64
170,83
266,51
133,03
140,55
-23,60
-24,25
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
a = 1282,173
b = 0,315
Standard deviation
3,783
97,744
0,561
NS
300
200
100
0
-100
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-200
-300
-400
1600
1500
1400

adjusted
Trend
1300
1200
1100

interval
01
/
01
/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
01 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97
1000

interval
page 39 of 70
Case Study:
7 Annex 2: KILLED TIME SERIES

EUROPE KILLED
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
Seasonal
Coefficient
-346,37
-641,48
-396,92
-240,87
-87,14
143,75
515,14
521,03
144,42
188,65
70,70
129,09
a = 3456,156
b = -9,558
Standard deviation
-114,690
129,409
12,843
VS
600
400
200
0
-200
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-400
-600
-800
3800
3600
3400
3200
3000
2800
2600
2400
2200
2000

adjusted
Trend
Lower values of 90%
confidence interval
01
/0
1/
92
01
/0
4/
92
01
/0
7/
92
01
/1
0/
92
01
/0
1/
93
01
/0
4/
93
01
/0
7/
93
01
/1
0/
93
01
/0
1/
94
01
/0
4/
94
01
/0
7/
94
01
/1
0/
94
01
/0
1/
95
01
/0
4/
95
01
/0
7/
95
01
/1
0/
95
01
/0
1/
96
01
/0
4/
96
01
/0
7/
96
01
/1
0/
96
01
/0
1/
97
01
/0
4/
97
01
/0
7/
97
01
/1
0/
97
Upper values of 90%

confidence interval
GROUP A KILLED
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
Seasonal
Coefficient
-222,22
-463,69
-244,99
-162,29
-73,42
78,78
373,31
311,01
88,04
114,07
75,44
125,97
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
a = 2443,237
b = -7,366
Standard deviation
-88,393
112,430
11,393
VS
600
400
200
0
-200
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-400
-600
2700
2500
2300

adjusted
Trend
2100
1900
1700

interval
01
/0
1/
9
01
2
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
01 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
0 1 97
/1
0/
97
1500

interval
page 40 of 70
Case Study:
GROUP B KILLED
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
Seasonal
Coefficient
-100,23
-152,08
-120,43
-45,12
-7,80
45,34
124,32
186,80
42,62
58,10
-10,59
-20,94
a = 803,457
b = -1,647
Standard deviation
-19,767
37,002
7,741
VS
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
900
adjusted
850
800
Trend
750
interval
700
650

interval
01
/0
1/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
01 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97
600
GROUP C KILLED
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
Seasonal
Coefficient
-23,92
-25,71
-31,50
-33,46
-5,91
19,63
17,51
23,22
13,76
16,47
5,85
24,06
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
a = 209,462
b = -0,544
Standard deviation
-6,531
18,435
5,134
VS
30
20
10
0
-10
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-20
-30
-40

adjusted
Trend
interval
interval
01
/0
1/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
0 1 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97
260
240
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
page 41 of 70
Case Study:
AT KILLED
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
Seasonal
Coefficient
-19,08
-26,60
-30,96
-20,99
5,98
22,79
20,93
32,07
8,38
16,18
-2,01
-6,70
a = 119,585
b = -0,473
Standard deviation
-5,681
15,115
5,447
VS
40
30
20
10
0
-10
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-20
-30
-40
170
adjusted
150
130
Trend
110
interval
90
70

interval
01
/0
1/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
01 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97
50
BE KILLED
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
Seasonal
Coefficient
-12,10
-21,90
-15,37
-9,83
-0,80
3,57
6,43
14,47
13,00
19,87
9,57
-6,90
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
a = 147,148
b = -0,534
Standard deviation
-6,405
13,505
6,872
VS
30
20
10
0
-10
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-20
-30
190
170
150
130

adjusted
Trend
110
90
70

interval
01
/0
1/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
0 1 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97
50

interval
page 42 of 70
Case Study:
DK KILLED
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
Seasonal
Coefficient
-2,46
-8,02
-7,08
-5,98
-2,70
4,74
-1,65
3,12
2,39
4,33
6,61
6,71
a = 49,278
b = -0,107
Standard deviation
-1,283
8,260
2,252
VS
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
sept
oct
nov
dec

adjusted
Trend
interval
01
/0
1/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
01 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97

interval
ES KILLED
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
Seasonal
Coefficient
-55,41
-106,21
-32,34
-27,31
-29,27
-24,57
98,29
144,16
32,86
-1,27
-29,57
30,63
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
a = 607,468
b = -2,701
Standard deviation
-32,410
54,279
8,653
VS
200
150
100
50
0
-50
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-100
-150
800
700
600

adjusted
Trend
500
400
300

interval
01
/0
1/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
0 1 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97
200

interval
page 43 of 70
Case Study:
FI KILLED
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
Seasonal
Coefficient
-8,75
-5,70
-8,82
-5,43
-3,55
6,00
5,05
8,94
4,65
3,70
-3,75
7,64
a = 47,478
b = -0,217
Standard deviation
-2,605
7,955
4,745
VS
10
5
0
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-5
-10
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

adjusted
Trend
interval
01
/0
1/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
01 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97

interval
FR KILLED
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
Seasonal
Coefficient
-70,80
-171,04
-91,28
-81,52
-13,26
37,33
128,75
87,18
24,11
64,53
41,96
44,05
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
a = 841,674
b = -2,259
Standard deviation
-27,112
48,067
8,174
VS
150
100
50
0
-50
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-100
-150
-200

adjusted
Trend
interval
interval
01
/0
1/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
0 1 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97
1000
950
900
850
800
750
700
650
600
550
500
page 44 of 70
Case Study:
GB KILLED
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
Seasonal
Coefficient
-15,83
-41,90
-36,81
-27,72
-23,29
-18,70
7,73
18,65
5,41
22,34
50,60
59,52
a = 340,368
b = -0,759
Standard deviation
-9,112
24,656
5,355
VS
80
60
40
20
0
-20
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-40
-60
400
380
360
340
320
300
280
260
240
220
200

adjusted
Trend
interval
01
/0
1/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
01 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97

interval
GR KILLED
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
Seasonal
Coefficient
-31,92
-54,73
-34,87
-17,35
-12,33
7,70
65,89
72,58
16,10
11,95
-13,69
-9,33
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
a = 184,791
b = -0,023
Standard deviation
-0,274
20,638
0,192
NS
80
60
40
20
0
-20
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-40
-60
-80
240
220
200

adjusted
Trend
180
160
140

interval
01
/0
1/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
0 1 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97
120

interval
page 45 of 70
Case Study:
IE KILLED
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
Seasonal
Coefficient
-4,70
-3,78
0,98
-4,93
-2,01
-0,09
0,17
1,59
5,52
6,10
1,03
0,12
a = 33,475
b = 0,077
Standard deviation
0,926
6,985
1,921
S
8
6
4
2
0
janu
-2
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-4
-6
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10

adjusted
Trend
interval
01
/0
1/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
01 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97

interval
IT KILLED
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
Seasonal
Coefficient
-80,18
-144,53
-84,55
-25,74
-7,59
84,72
138,53
61,01
25,66
28,47
12,45
-8,24
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
a = 653,727
b = -1,647
Standard deviation
-19,760
39,518
7,246
VS
200
150
100
50
0
-50
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-100
-150
-200
800
700
600

adjusted
Trend
500
400
300

interval
01
/0
1/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
0 1 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97
200

interval
page 46 of 70
Case Study:
LU KILLED
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
Seasonal
Coefficient
-0,30
-1,29
-1,28
-0,27
1,25
0,26
-0,23
-0,22
1,46
0,64
-0,18
0,16
a = 6,178
b = -0,012
Standard deviation
-0,145
2,594
0,811
NS
2
2
1
1
0
-1
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-1
-2
14
adjusted
12
10
Trend
8
6

interval
4
2

interval
01
/0
1/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
01 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97
NI KILLED
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
Seasonal
Coefficient
-0,77
2,24
1,08
-5,25
1,10
-1,73
2,45
0,12
1,13
-0,19
-2,51
2,33
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
a = 12,555
b = -0,009
Standard deviation
-0,110
4,091
0,388
NS
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
25
20

adjusted
15
Trend
10
5

interval
01
/0
1/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
0 1 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97

interval
page 47 of 70
Case Study:
NL KILLED
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
Seasonal
Coefficient
-5,95
-20,67
-16,55
10,06
2,01
11,46
10,07
3,35
2,30
6,42
-0,47
-2,02
a = 107,846
b = -0,115
Standard deviation
-1,379
11,940
1,673
S
15
10
5
0
-5
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-10
-15
-20
-25
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60

adjusted
Trend
interval
01
/0
1/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
01 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97

interval
PT KILLED
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
Seasonal
Coefficient
-31,18
-28,18
-22,68
-7,01
-2,67
-0,17
21,00
64,34
2,84
3,68
-3,99
4,01
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
a = 244,087
b = -0,502
Standard deviation
-6,029
24,049
3,633
VS
80
60
40
20
0
-20
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-40
310
260

adjusted
210
Trend
160
110

interval
01
/0
1/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
0 1 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97
60

interval
page 48 of 70
Case Study:
SV KILLED
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
Seasonal
Coefficient
-6,94
-9,16
-16,38
-11,61
0,00
10,45
11,72
9,66
-1,39
1,88
4,66
7,10
y = a + bt with :
1992 1997
regression
Additive
a = 60,498
b = -0,276
Standard deviation
-3,314
9,775
4,913
VS
15
10
5
0
-5
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-10
-15
-20
120
100
80

adjusted
Trend
60
40
20

interval
01
/0
1/
01 92
/0
4/
01 92
/0
7/
01 92
/1
0/
01 92
/0
1/
01 93
/0
4/
01 93
/0
7/
01 93
/1
0/
01 93
/0
1/
01 94
/0
4/
01 94
/0
7/
01 94
/1
0/
01 94
/0
1/
01 95
/0
4/
01 95
/0
7/
01 95
/1
0/
01 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4/
01 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0/
01 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4/
01 97
/0
7/
01 97
/1
0/
97

interval
page 49 of 70
Case Study:
8 Annex 3: SEVERITY TIME SERIES

SEVERITY AT
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
VS
1992 1997
regression
Additive
Seasonal
Coefficient
0,32
0,21
-0,45
-0,38
-0,24
0,09
-0,2
0,18
-0,14
0,14
0,12
0,35
Seasonal Coefficient
0,4
0,2
0
-0,2
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-0,4
-0,6
Gravity
4,5
Time serie values

seasonally adjusted
Trend
3,5
3
Lower values of 90%

confidence interval
2,5
Upper values of 90%
confidence interval
01
/0
1/
92
01
/0
4/
92
01
/0
7/
92
01
/1
0/
92
01
/0
1/
93
01
/0
4/
93
01
/0
7/
93
01
/1
0/
93
01
/0
1/
94
01
/0
4/
94
01
/0
7/
94
01
/1
0/
94
01
/0
1/
95
01
/0
4/
95
01
/0
7/
95
01
/1
0/
95
01
/0
1/
96
01
/0
4/
96
01
/0
7/
96
01
/1
0/
96
01
/0
1/
97
01
/0
4/
97
01
/0
7/
97
01
/1
0/
97
1,5
SEVERITY BE
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
Seasonal
Coefficient
0,05
0,08
-0,21
-0,06
-0,23
-0,23
0,16
0,23
0,04
0,07
0,18
-0,08
VS
1992 1997
regression
Additive
0,3
0,2
0,1
0
-0,1
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-0,2
-0,3
Gravity
Time serie values
seasonally adjusted
Trend
Lower values of 90%
confidence interval
Upper values of 90%
confidence interval
01
/0
1/
9
2
01
/0
4/
92
01
/0
7/
92
01
/1
0/
92
01
/0
1/
93
01
/0
4/
93
01
/0
7/
93
01
/1
0/
93
01
/0
1/
94
01
/0
4/
94
01
/0
7/
94
01
/1
0/
94
01
/0
1/
95
01
/0
4/
95
01
/0
7/
95
01
/1
0/
95
01
/0
1/
96
01
/0
4/
96
01
/0
7/
96
01
/1
0/
96
01
/0
1/
97
01
/0
4/
97
01
/0
7/
97
01
/1
0/
97
4
3,8
3,6
3,4
3,2
3
2,8
2,6
2,4
2,2
2
page 50 of 70
Case Study:
SEVERITY DK
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
Seasonal
Coefficient
0,62
0,55
0,02
-0,12
-0,82
0,15
-0,71
-0,72
-0,24
0,01
0,27
0,96
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
NS
1992 1997
regression
Additive
1,5
1
0,5
0
janu
-0,5
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-1
Gravity
9,5
8,5
Time serie values

seasonally adjusted
7,5
Trend
6,5
Lower values of 90%

confidence interval
5,5
Upper values of 90%

confidence interval
4,5
01
/0
1/
92
01
/0
4/
92
01
/0
7/
92
01
/1
0/
92
01
/0
1/
93
01
/0
4/
93
01
/0
7/
93
01
/1
0/
93
01
/0
1/
94
01
/0
4/
94
01
/0
7/
94
01
/1
0/
94
01
/0
1/
95
01
/0
4/
95
01
/0
7/
95
01
/1
0/
95
01
/0
1/
96
01
/0
4/
96
01
/0
7/
96
01
/1
0/
96
01
/0
1/
97
01
/0
4/
97
01
/0
7/
97
01
/1
0/
97
3,5
SEVERITY ES
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
Seasonal
Coefficient
-0,11
-0,74
-0,36
-0,22
-0,7
-0,63
0,29
1,31
0,59
-0,06
-0,04
0,67
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
VS
1992 1997
regression
Additive
1,5
1
0,5
0
janu
-0,5
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-1
Gravity
11,00
Time serie values
seasonally adjusted
10,00
9,00
Trend
8,00
Lower values of 90%
confidence interval
7,00
6,00
Upper values of 90%

confidence interval
5,00
97
97
10
/
07
/
01
/
01
/
97
97
01
/
04
/
96
01
/
01
/
96
10
/
01
/
01
/
07
/
96
96
04
/
01
/
01
/
01
/
95
95
01
/
10
/
95
07
/
01
/
01
/
04
/
95
94
01
/
01
/
01
/
10
/
94
94
01
/
07
/
94
01
/
04
/
93
01
/
01
/
93
10
/
01
/
01
/
07
/
93
93
01
/
01
/
01
/
04
/
92
01
/
10
/
92
07
/
01
/
04
/
92
01
/
01
/
01
/
92
4,00
page 51 of 70
Case Study:
SEVERITY FI
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
VS
1992 1997
regression
Additive
Seasonal
Coefficient
-0,86
0,75
0,43
1,08
-1,17
-0,2
-0,72
-0,46
-0,32
0,16
-0,03
1,32
1,5
1
0,5
0
-0,5
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-1
-1,5
Gravity
11,50
10,50
9,50
8,50
7,50
6,50
5,50
4,50
3,50
2,50
Time serie values

seasonally adjusted
Trend
Lower values of 90%
confidence interval
01
/0
1/
92
01
/0
4/
92
01
/0
7/
92
01
/1
0/
92
01
/0
1/
93
01
/0
4/
93
01
/0
7/
93
01
/1
0/
93
01
/0
1/
94
01
/0
4/
94
01
/0
7/
94
01
/1
0/
94
01
/0
1/
95
01
/0
4/
95
01
/0
7/
95
01
/1
0/
95
01
/0
1/
96
01
/0
4/
96
01
/0
7/
96
01
/1
0/
96
01
/0
1/
97
01
/0
4/
97
01
/0
7/
97
01
/1
0/
97
Upper values of 90%

confidence interval
SEVERITY FR
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
Seasonal
Coefficient
-0,12
-0,48
-0,32
-0,33
-0,25
-0,26
0,65
1,18
-0,09
-0,27
0,09
0,20
VS
1992 1997
regression
Additive
1,50
1,00
0,50
0,00
-0,50
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-1,00
Gravity
8,00
7,50
Time serie values

seasonally adjusted
7,00
Trend
6,50
6,00
5,50
Upper values of 90 %
confidence interval
01
/0
1
01 / 92
/0
4
01 / 92
/0
7
01 / 92
/1
0
01 / 92
/0
1
01 / 93
/0
4
01 / 93
/0
7
01 / 9 3
/1
0
01 / 93
/0
1
01 / 94
/0
4
01 / 94
/0
7
01 / 94
/1
0
01 / 94
/0
1
01 / 95
/0
4
01 / 95
/0
7
01 / 95
/1
0
01 / 95
/0
1/
01 96
/0
4
01 / 96
/0
7/
01 96
/1
0
01 / 96
/0
1/
01 97
/0
4
01 / 97
/0
7
01 / 97
/1
0/
97
5,00
Lower values of 90 %
confidence interval
page 52 of 70
Case Study:
SEVERITY GB
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
Seasonal
Coefficient
0
-0,03
-0,12
-0,02
-0,11
-0,08
0
0,1
0,01
-0,01
0,07
0,19
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
VS
1992 1997
regression
Additive
0,25
0,2
0,15
0,1
0,05
0
-0,05
-0,1
-0,15
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
Gravity
2,20

adjusted
2,00
Trend
1,80
1,60
Lower values of 90%

confidence interval
1,40
Upper values of 90%

confidence interval
1,20
97
97
01
/
10
/
97
01
/
07
/
97
01
/
04
/
96
01
/
10
/
01
/
01
/
96
96
01
/
07
/
96
01
/
04
/
95
01
/
01
/
95
01
/
10
/
95
01
/
07
/
95
01
/
04
/
94
01
/
10
/
01
/
01
/
94
94
07
/
04
/
01
/
01
/
93
94
01
/
10
/
01
/
01
/
01
/
07
/
93
93
93
01
/
04
/
92
01
/
01
/
01
/
10
/
92
07
/
01
/
04
/
01
/
01
/
01
/
92
92
1,00
SEVERITY GR
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
Seasonal
Coefficient
0,7
-0,71
-0,48
-0,29
-1,04
-0,97
0,31
1,76
-0,06
-0,06
0,37
0,48
VS
1992 1997
regression
Additive
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
-0,5
-1
-1,5
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
Gravity
13,00
12,00
Time serie values

seasonally adjusted
11,00
Trend
10,00
9,00
Lower values of 90%

confidence interval
8,00
7,00
Upper values of 90%

confidence interval
01
/0
1/
9
2
01
/0
4/
92
01
/0
7/
92
01
/1
0/
92
01
/0
1/
93
01
/0
4/
93
01
/0
7/
93
01
/1
0/
93
01
/0
1/
94
01
/0
4/
94
01
/0
7/
94
01
/1
0/
94
01
/0
1/
95
01
/0
4/
95
01
/0
7/
95
01
/1
0/
95
01
/0
1/
96
01
/0
4/
96
01
/0
7/
96
01
/1
0/
96
01
/0
1/
97
01
/0
4/
97
01
/0
7/
97
01
/1
0/
97
6,00
page 53 of 70
Case Study:
SEVERITY IE
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
Seasonal
Coefficient
-0,02
0,14
0,23
-0,61
-0,46
0,19
-0,66
-0,04
0,63
0,53
-0,07
0,13
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
VS
1992 1997
regression
Additive
1
0,5
0
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-0,5
-1
Gravity
10,5
Time serie values

seasonally adjusted
9,5
8,5
Trend
7,5
6,5
Lower values of 90%

confidence interval
5,5
4,5
Upper values of 90%

confidence interval
3,5
01
/0
1/
92
01
/0
4/
92
01
/0
7/
92
01
/1
0/
92
01
/0
1/
93
01
/0
4/
93
01
/0
7/
93
01
/1
0/
93
01
/0
1/
94
01
/0
4/
94
01
/0
7/
94
01
/1
0/
94
01
/0
1/
95
01
/0
4/
95
01
/0
7/
95
01
/1
0/
95
01
/0
1/
96
01
/0
4/
96
01
/0
7/
96
01
/1
0/
96
01
/0
1/
97
01
/0
4/
97
01
/0
7/
97
01
/1
0/
97
2,5
SEVERITY IT
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
Seasonal
Coefficient
0,09
-0,24
-0,37
-0,16
-0,34
0,02
0,3
0,62
-0,04
-0,12
0,01
0,22
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
VS
1992 1997
regression
Additive
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
-0,2
-0,4
-0,6
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
Gravity
adjusted
6,00
5,50
5,00
Trend
4,50
4,00
Lower values of 90%

confidence interval
3,50
3,00
Upper values of 90%

confidence interval
97
97
10
/
07
/
01
/
01
/
97
97
01
/
04
/
96
01
/
01
/
01
/
10
/
96
96
01
/
07
/
96
04
/
01
/
01
/
01
/
95
95
01
/
10
/
95
07
/
01
/
01
/
04
/
95
94
01
/
01
/
94
01
/
10
/
94
01
/
07
/
94
01
/
04
/
93
01
/
10
/
01
/
01
/
93
93
07
/
04
/
01
/
01
/
92
93
01
/
01
/
92
01
/
10
/
92
07
/
01
/
04
/
01
/
01
/
01
/
92
2,50
page 54 of 70
Case Study:
SEVERITY LU
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
NS
1992 1997
regression
Additive
Seasonal
Coefficient
0,42
-0,54
-1,05
-0,11
0,41
-0,1
-0,97
0,57
1,64
0,32
-0,15
-0,43
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
-0,5
-1
-1,5
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
Gravity
14,00
Time serie values

seasonally adjusted
12,00
10,00
Trend
8,00
6,00
Lower values of
90% confidence
interval
Upper values of
90% confidence
i t
l
4,00
2,00
01
/0
1/
92
01
/0
4/
92
01
/0
7/
92
01
/1
0/
92
01
/0
1/
93
01
/0
4/
93
01
/0
7/
93
01
/1
0/
93
01
/0
1/
94
01
/0
4/
94
01
/0
7/
94
01
/1
0/
94
01
/0
1/
95
01
/0
4/
95
01
/0
7/
95
01
/1
0/
95
01
/0
1/
96
01
/0
4/
96
01
/0
7/
96
01
/1
0/
96
01
/0
1/
97
01
/0
4/
97
01
/0
7/
97
01
/1
0/
97
0,00
SEVERITY NI
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
Seasonal
Coefficient
-0,13
0,43
0,18
-0,84
0,11
-0,2
0,73
0,13
0,07
-0,14
-0,64
0,29
NS
1992 1997
regression
Additive
1
0,5
0
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-0,5
-1
Gravity
4,50
4,00
Time serie values

seasonally adjusted
3,50
3,00
Trend
2,50
2,00
1,50
1,00
0,50
Lower values of 90%

confidence interval
Upper values of 90%
confidence interval
01
/0
1/
9
2
01
/0
4/
92
01
/0
7/
92
01
/1
0/
92
01
/0
1/
93
01
/0
4/
93
01
/0
7/
93
01
/1
0/
93
01
/0
1/
94
01
/0
4/
94
01
/0
7/
94
01
/1
0/
94
01
/0
1/
95
01
/0
4/
95
01
/0
7/
95
01
/1
0/
95
01
/0
1/
96
01
/0
4/
96
01
/0
7/
96
01
/1
0/
96
01
/0
1/
97
01
/0
4/
97
01
/0
7/
97
01
/1
0/
97
0,00
page 55 of 70
Case Study:
SEVERITY NL
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
Seasonal
Coefficient
0,35
0,17
-0,3
0,21
-0,26
-0,21
0,17
0,03
-0,29
-0,15
-0,03
0,3
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
VS
1992 1997
regression
Additive
0,4
0,2
0
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-0,2
-0,4
Gravity
4,5
Time serie values

seasonally adjusted
Trend
3,5
3
Lower values of 90%

confidence interval
2,5
Upper values of 90%

confidence interval
01
/0
1/
92
01
/0
4/
92
01
/0
7/
92
01
/1
0/
92
01
/0
1/
93
01
/0
4/
93
01
/0
7/
93
01
/1
0/
93
01
/0
1/
94
01
/0
4/
94
01
/0
7/
94
01
/1
0/
94
01
/0
1/
95
01
/0
4/
95
01
/0
7/
95
01
/1
0/
95
01
/0
1/
96
01
/0
4/
96
01
/0
7/
96
01
/1
0/
96
01
/0
1/
97
01
/0
4/
97
01
/0
7/
97
01
/1
0/
97
SEVERITY PT
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
Seasonal
Coefficient
-0,1
0,28
-0,49
0,03
-0,05
-0,06
-0,31
0,41
0,01
-0,12
0,1
0,29
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
VS
1992 1997
regression
Additive
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
janu
-0,2
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-0,4
-0,6
Gravity
7
Time serie values

seasonally adjusted
6,5
Trend
6
5,5
Lower values of 90%

confidence interval
Upper values of 90%

confidence interval
4,5
01
/1
0
/9
7
/9
7
/9
7
/0
7
01
01
/0
4
/9
7
/9
6
/0
1
01
/9
6
/1
0
01
01
/0
7
/9
6
/9
6
/0
4
01
/9
5
/0
1
01
01
/1
0
/9
5
/9
5
/0
7
01
/9
5
/0
4
01
01
/0
1
/9
4
/9
4
/1
0
01
01
/0
7
/9
4
/9
4
/0
4
01
/9
3
/0
1
01
01
/1
0
/9
3
/9
3
/0
7
01
01
/0
4
/9
3
/9
2
/0
1
01
01
/1
0
/9
2
/9
2
/0
7
01
/0
4
01
01
/0
1
/9
2
page 56 of 70
Case Study:
SEVERITY SV
Monthly Time Series
Period
Method
Model
Month
Seasonal
Coefficient
0,12
0,12
-0,48
-0,22
-0,3
0,01
0,38
0
-0,46
-0,25
0,47
0,61
janu
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
VS
1992 1997
regression
Additive
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
janu
-0,2
febr
mar
apr
may
june
july
augus
sept
oct
nov
dec
-0,4
-0,6
Gravity
7,5
Time serie values

seasonally adjusted
6,5
Trend
5,5
Lower values of 90%
confidence interval
4,5
Upper values of 90%

confidence interval
3,5
2,5
97
97
10
/
01
/
01
/
07
/
97
97
01
/
04
/
96
01
/
01
/
96
10
/
01
/
01
/
07
/
96
96
04
/
01
/
01
/
01
/
95
95
01
/
10
/
95
01
/
07
/
95
04
/
01
/
01
/
01
/
94
94
10
/
07
/
01
/
01
/
94
94
01
/
04
/
93
01
/
01
/
93
10
/
01
/
01
/
07
/
93
93
01
/
04
/
92
01
/
10
/
01
/
01
/
92
01
/
07
/
92
04
/
01
/
01
/
01
/
92
1,5
page 57 of 70
Case Study:
9 Annex 4: TYPOLOGY PEDAL CYCLISTS
page 58 of 70
Case Study:
page 59 of 70
Case Study:
page 60 of 70
Case Study:
Tac : rate of pedal cycle accidents = Nac / Natot

Nac : number of pedal cycle accidents
Natot : total number of accidents
Group 1 = GB + IT + FR + ES
Group 2 = BE + PT + NL + AT + GR
Group 3 = SV + DK + IE + FI + NI + LU
Countries
Nac (6 years) Natot (6 years)
Tac
Tkc
level
Tkc
level
DK
14821
50214
29,52
NL
71277
247334
28,82
FI
8355
42340
19,73
SV
18074
93145
19,40
AT
35161
245440
14,33
BE
43806
312961
14,00
GB
149296
1403357
10,64
IE
4575
44962
10,18
FR
46591
797144
5,84
IT
54268
1057746
5,13
NI
2085
41027
5,08
LU
234
6667
3,51
ES
17056
500928
3,40
PT
9520
292347
3,26
GR
2583
137261
1,88
Group1
267211
3759175
7,11
Group2
162347
1235343
13,14
Group3
48144
278355
17,30
Europe (15)
477702
5272873
9,06
page 61 of 70
Case Study:
Tkc severity rate = 100*Nkc / Nac (killed pedal cyclists per 100 accidents involving at
least one pedal cycle
Nkc = number of killed on pedal cycle
Nac = number of accident with at least one pedal cycle
page 62 of 70
Case Study:
page 63 of 70
Case Study:
10 Annex 5: TYPOLOGY PEDESTRIAN

Killed in accidents involving at least one pedestrian
Nkp
Nkp / 6
6 years Yearly average
Countries
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
FR
1270
1233
1190
1086
1043
982
6804
1 134
GB
1347
1241
1124
1038
997
973
6720
1 120
ES
1208
1103
1007
1000
960
967
6245
1 041
IT
1185
1020
1022
945
985
893
6050
1 008
PT
694
699
564
598
624
549
3728
621
GR
464
498
479
481
422
409
2753
459
AT
240
202
225
200
157
156
1180
197
BE
233
199
197
149
154
142
1074
179
NL
146
143
124
142
109
119
783
131
IE
115
136
121
113
115
130
730
122
DK
111
133
93
118
68
87
610
102
SV
138
94
86
71
74
72
535
89
FI
116
86
87
72
70
69
500
83
NI
47
42
45
47
42
37
260
43
LU
18
59
10
Group1
5010
4597
4343
4069
3985
3815
25819
4 303
Group2
1777
1741
1589
1570
1466
1375
9518
1 586
Group3
536
509
439
429
378
403
2694
449
38031
6 339
Europe (15)
page 64 of 70
Case Study:
Severity of pedestrian accidents

Nkp= Number of killed pedestrian 6 years
Nap= Number of accidents involving at least one pedestrian 6 years
Tkpa= Nkp / Nap
Countries
N,kp
N,ap
T,kpa
T,kpa*10
0
GR
2753
25173
0,11
10,94
DK
610
6649
0,09
9,17
ES
6245
79275
0,08
7,88
FI
500
6382
0,08
7,83
IE
730
9417
0,08
7,75
LU
59
902
0,07
6,54
IT
6050
93537
0,06
6,47
PT
3728
58618
0,06
6,36
SV
535
8929
0,06
5,99
FR
6804
127945
0,05
5,32
NL
783
18567
0,04
4,22
BE
1074
25679
0,04
4,18
AT
1180
29614
0,04
3,98
NI
260
7261
0,04
3,58
GB
6720
277516
0,02
2,42
Group1
25819
578273
0,04
4,46
Group2
9518
157651
0,06
6,04
Group3
2694
39540
0,07
6,81
Europe (15)
38031
775464
0,05
4,90
page 65 of 70
Case Study:
Nap = Number of accidents involving at least one pedestrian
Natot = total number of accidents
Tap = rate of pedestrian accidents =Nap / Na,tot
Tapp = number of pedestrian accidents per billion of inhabitants (Nap / pop / 1000)
Population (millions of inhabitants)
Countries
population
Nap
Na,tot
IE
3,7
9 417
PT
10,8
GB
T,ap
T,app
44 962
20,94%
2,55
58 618
292 347
20,05%
5,43
56,9
277 516
1 403 357
19,78%
4,88
GR
10,5
25 173
137 261
18,34%
2,40
NI
1,7
7 261
41 027
17,70%
4,27
FR
60,4
127 945
797 144
16,05%
2,12
ES
39,4
79 275
500 928
15,83%
2,01
FI
5,2
6 382
42 340
15,07%
1,23
LU
0,43
902
6 667
13,53%
2,10
DK
5,3
6 649
50 214
13,24%
1,25
AT
8,1
29 614
245 440
12,07%
3,66
SV
8,9
8 929
93 145
9,59%
1,00
IT
57,6
93 537
1 057 746
8,84%
1,62
BE
10,2
25 679
312 961
8,21%
2,52
NL
15,8
18 567
247 334
7,51%
1,18
Group1
214,3
578 273
3 759 175
15,38%
2,70
Group2
55,4
157 651
1 235 343
12,76%
2,85
Group3
25,23
39 540
278 355
14,20%
1,57
Europe (15)
294,93
775 464
5 272 873
14,71%
2,63
page 66 of 70
Case Study:
Nap = Number of accidents involving at least one pedestrian
Natot = total number of accidents
Tap = rate of pedestrian accidents =Nap / Na,tot
Tapp = number of pedestrian accidents per billion of inhabitants (Nap / pop / 1000)
Population (millions of inhabitants)
Countries
population
Nap
Na,tot
PT
10,8
58 618
GB
56,9
NI
T,ap
T,app
292 347
20,05%
5,43
277 516
1 403 357
19,78%
4,88
1,7
7 261
41 027
17,70%
4,27
AT
8,1
29 614
245 440
12,07%
3,66
IE
3,7
9 417
44 962
20,94%
2,55
BE
10,2
25 679
312 961
8,21%
2,52
GR
10,5
25 173
137 261
18,34%
2,40
FR
60,4
127 945
797 144
16,05%
2,12
LU
0,43
902
6 667
13,53%
2,10
ES
39,4
79 275
500 928
15,83%
2,01
IT
57,6
93 537
1 057 746
8,84%
1,62
DK
5,3
6 649
50 214
13,24%
1,25
FI
5,2
6 382
42 340
15,07%
1,23
NL
15,8
18 567
247 334
7,51%
1,18
SV
8,9
8 929
93 145
9,59%
1,00
Group1
214,3
578 273
3 759 175
15,38%
2,70
Group2
55,4
157 651
1 235 343
12,76%
2,85
Group3
25,23
39 540
278 355
14,20%
1,57
Europe (15)
294,93
775 464
5 272 873
14,71%
2,63
page 67 of 70
Case Study:
page 68 of 70
Case Study:
page 69 of 70
Case Study:
Accidents involving at least one pedestrian

Countries
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
NAP
6 years
NAP/6
yearly
average
GB
49 781
46 475
47 016
45 446
44 787
44 011 277 516
46 253
FR
23 298
22 104
22 000
21 317
19 962
19 264 127 945
21 324
IT
15 503
14 401
16 137
15 737
16 367
15 392
93 537
15 590
ES
13 932
13 099
13 115
13 133
13 113
12 883
79 275
13 213
PT
10 681
10 067
9 557
9 666
9 552
9 095
58 618
9 770
AT
5 740
5 130
4 966
4 625
4 522
4 631
29 614
4 936
BE
4 642
4 504
4 363
4 148
4 053
3 969
25 679
4 280
GR
4 247
4 264
4 249
4 097
4 127
4 189
25 173
4 196
NL
3 472
3 187
3 237
2 949
2 942
2 780
18 567
3 095
IE
1 482
1 389
1 407
1 707
1 757
1 675
9 417
1 570
SV
1 565
1 447
1 549
1 449
1 512
1 407
8 929
1 488
NI
1 284
1 217
1 223
1 176
1 206
1 155
7 261
1 210
DK
1 239
1 180
1 100
1 147
984
999
6 649
1 108
FI
1 271
979
1 033
1 085
1 031
983
6 382
1 064
LU
160
160
143
149
153
137
902
150
Group1
102 514
96 079
98 268
95 633
94 229
91 550
578 273
96 379
Group2
28 782
27 152
26 372
25 485
25 196
24 664
157 651
26 275
Group3
7 001
6 372
6 455
6 713
6 643
6 356
39 540
6 590
775 464
129 244
Europe (15)
page 70 of 70

Evolution and Typology of Accidents and Severity

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Evolution and Typology of Accidents and Severity

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case Study:

Evolution and Typology of Accidents and Severity

Methodological approach ..............................................................................................5

Results and analysis per country................................................................................9

Results and analysis per group of states..................................................................11

Results and global analysis of the whole EU............................................................12

3.3 Variations of number of killed Nk............................................................................. 13

Results and analysis per country..............................................................................13

Results and analysis per group of countries.............................................................14

Results and global analysis of the whole EU............................................................14

3.4 Variation of the severity of accidents....................................................................... 15

Data and notations....................................................................................................17

Results and analysis.................................................................................................18

4.2 Pedal cycle accidents .............................................................................................. 23

Data indicators and notations ...................................................................................23

Results and analysis.................................................................................................24

Annex 1: ACCIDENT TIME SERIES .............................................................................30

Annex 2: KILLED TIME SERIES ...................................................................................40

Annex 3: SEVERITY TIME SERIES ..............................................................................50

Annex 4: TYPOLOGY PEDAL CYCLISTS....................................................................58

10 Annex 5: TYPOLOGY PEDESTRIAN............................................................................64

Na = number of accidents over six years

500 000 < Na and

GB, IT, FR, ES

BE, PT, NL, AT, GR

SV, DK, IE, FI, NI, LU

Time series analysis

(a + bt): is the regression straight line where 'a' is the gradient

(at + b) and (et) as defined above.

Quoted from 'Statistique pour la scurit routire: SETRA octobre 1998'

n If n/N p0 then: 0 = P(xn) =

o If n/N>p0 then 0 = P(xn) = 1 - P(x<n) =1-

Results of the test

then the test result is considered as "significant"(S)

then the test result is considered as "no significant " (NS)

then the test result is considered as "very significant " (VS)

3 Variations of accident and killed numbers and severity from 1992

Data and notation of indicators

Csa : 'seasonal coefficients' of accidents

s = 100(Nk/Na) the number of killed per 100 accidents

s = Severity ' seasonally adjusted'

are 'seasonally adjusted' from the rates

and not calculated from the 'season-

Csk could be different, so .

Accident number variations Na

Srie CVS = Time serie values seasonally adjusted

Srie CVS = Time serie values seasonally adjusted

Srie CVS = Time serie values seasonally adjusted

Results and analysis per group of states

Results and global analysis of the whole EU

Srie CVS = Time serie values seasonally adjusted

Results and analysis per country

Variations of number of killed Nk

Srie CVS = Time serie values seasonally adjusted

Results and analysis per group of countries

Srie CVS = Time serie values seasonally adjusted

Results and global analysis of the whole EU

Srie CVS = Time serie values seasonally adjusted

Variation of the severity of accidents

1 992 janv ier

Sr ie s CV S / Tendan c e av ec inte rvalles de c onf ianc e 90 %

Srie CVS = Time serie values seasonally adjusted

Sries CVS / Tendance avec intervalles de confiance 90 %