We report the results of a contingent valuation study for finding a conservative estimate of the value-of-statistical-life in an urban road safety context in Sweden. We estimate the value of both a private-good device and a public-good safety program. The reduction of risk is communicated with a “community analogy” representation of the “Vision Zero” target of the national traffic-safety policy. According to this target, the road-traffic system should be designed so as to prevent accidents when they happen to lead to fatalities or severe injuries. We use the “certainty approach” for ex-post correction of results to remove or mitigate hypothetical bias of responses. As expected we find insensitivity of responses in the full sample to the size of the risk reduction being valued. By our approach we can compute a conservative estimate, based on answers from fully confident respondents, of the value of the largest possible safety enhancement (i.e. fulfilment of the “Vision Zero”). This lower bound estimate indicates a higher average willingness-to-pay for public safety-improving measures than currently assumed in benefit-cost assessments. We also find that the willingness to pay is considerably lower within a public-good than a private-good framework and a weak indication of sensitivity to scale among the most confident respondents. Copyright Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006Value of statistical life, Vision Zero, Contingent valuation, Scale bias, Scope bias,

No abstract

This article clearly shows that road safety is causing large problems and high costs in Asia, with an enormous impact on the well-being of people, economy, and productivity. In many Asian low- and middle-income countries, the yearly number of fatalities and injuries is increasing. Vulnerable road users (pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists combined) are particularly at risk. Road safety in Asia should be given rightful attention, including taking powerful, effective actions. This review stresses the need for reliable accident data, because there is considerable underreporting in the official statistics. Reliable accident data are imperative to determine evidence-based intervention strategies and monitor the success of these interventions and analyses. On the other hand, lack of good high-quality accident data should not be an excuse to postpone interventions. There are many opportunities for evidence-based transport safety improvements, including measures concerning the 5 key risk factors: speed, drunk driving, not wearing motorcycle helmets, not wearing seat belts, and not using child restraints in cars, as specified in the Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020. In this commentary, a number of additional measures are proposed that are not covered in the Decade of Action Plan. These new measures include separate roads or lanes for pedestrians and cyclists; helmet wearing for e-bike riders; special attention to elderly persons in public transportation; introduction of emerging collision avoidance technologies, in particular automatic emergency braking (AEB) and alcohol locks; improved truck safety focusing on the other road user (including blind spot detection technology; underride protection at the front, rear, and side; and energy-absorbing fronts); and improvements in motorcycle safety concerning protective clothing, requirements for advanced braking systems, improved visibility of motorcycles by using daytime running lights, and better guardrails.

This study uses the contingent valuation method to elicit individuals' preferences for their own and others' safety in road-traffic. Whereas one group is asked about a private safety device for themselves, other groups are asked about safety devices for their children, household, relatives and the public. Support is found for the hypothesis that individuals are not purely selfish when it comes the safety of others.

No abstract