434-09

8/12/2019 434-09

1/20

Risk Assessment Data Directory

Report No. 434 9

March 2010

I n t e r n a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f O i l & G a s P r o d u c e r s

Landtransportaccidentstatistics

8/12/2019 434-09

2/20

Publications

Global experience

Te International Association of Oil & Gas Producers has access to a wealth of technicalknowledge and experience with its members operating around the world in many differentterrains. We collate and distil this valuable knowledge for the industry to use as guidelines

for good practice by individual members.

Consistent high quality database and guidelines

Our overall aim is to ensure a consistent approach to training, management and best prac-tice throughout the world.

Te oil and gas exploration and production industry recognises the need to develop consist-ent databases and records in certain fields. Te OGPs members are encouraged to use theguidelines as a starting point for their operations or to supplement their own policies and

regulations which may apply locally.

Internationally recognised source of industry information

Many of our guidelines have been recognised and used by international authorities andsafety and environmental bodies. Requests come from governments and non-governmentorganisations around the world as well as from non-member companies.

Disclaimer

Whilst every eff ort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this publication,neither the OGP nor any of its members past present or future warrants its accuracy or will, regardlessof its or their negligence, assume liability for any foreseeable or unforeseeable use made thereof, whichliability is hereby excluded. Consequently, such use is at the recipients own risk on the basis that any useby the recipient constitutes agreement to the terms of this disclaimer. e recipient is obliged to inform

any subsequent recipient of such terms.

is document may proide guidance supplemental to the requirements of local legislation. Nothingherein, however, is intended to replace, amend, supersede or otherwise depart om such requirements. Inthe event of any conflict or contradiction between the proisions of this document and local legislation,

applicable laws shall prevail.

Copyright notice

e contents of these pages are e International Association of Oil and Gas Producers. Permission

is given to reproduce this report in whole or in part proided (i) that the copyright of OGP and (ii)the source are acknowledged. All other rights are reserved. Any other use requires the prior written

permission of the OGP.

ese Terms and Conditions shall be goerned by and construed in accordance with the laws of Eng-land and Wales. Disputes arising here om shall be exclusively subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of

England and Wales.

8/12/2019 434-09

3/20

RADD Land transport accident statistics

OGP

contents

1.0 Scope and Application........................................................... 1 2.0 Summary of Recommended Data............................................ 1 2.1 Road and rail users......................................................................................... 12.2 Dangerous Goods Transport......................................................................... 4

3.0 Guidance on use of data ........................................................ 5 3.1 General validity ............................................................................................... 53.2 Uncertainties ...................................................................................................53.2.1 Road and Rail User Casualty Frequencies .............................................................. 53.2.2 DG Transport .............................................................................................................. 53.3 Application of frequencies to specific locations ......................................... 53.3.1 Road and Rail Transport............................................................................................ 63.3.2 Dangerous Goods Transport .................................................................................... 6

4.0 Review of data sources ......................................................... 7 4.1 Basis of data presented .................................................................................74.1.1 Road Transport........................................................................................................... 74.1.2 Rail Transport ............................................................................................................. 84.1.3 Dangerous Goods Transport .................................................................................. 104.2 Other data sources ....................................................................................... 104.2.1 Road Transport......................................................................................................... 104.2.2 Rail Transport ........................................................................................................... 114.2.3 Dangerous Goods Transport .................................................................................. 11

5.0 Recommended data sources for further information ............ 126.0 References .......................................................................... 12

8/12/2019 434-09

4/20


OGP

Abbreviations:

ACDS Advisory Committee on Dangerous Substances

BLEVE Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapour ExplosionDfT Department for Transport

DG Dangerous GoodsDNV Det Norske Veritas

ECMT European Conference of Ministers of TransportE&P Exploration and Production

ERA European Railway Agency

EU European UnionFEMA Federal Emergency Management AgencyFRA Federal Railroad Administration

GB Great BritainHGV Heavy Goods Vehicle

IRF International Road FederationKSI Killed or Seriously Injured

LGV Light Goods VehicleLPG Liquefied Petroleum Gasmm millimetre

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentOG&P Oil and Gas ProducersORR Office of Rail RegulationQRA Quantitative Risk Assessment

RSSB Rail Safety and Standards BoardUIC International Union of RailwaysUK United Kingdom

US(A) United States (of America)(V) km (Vehicle) kilometre

8/12/2019 434-09

5/20


OGP 1

1.0 Scope and ApplicationThis datasheet provides information on land transport accident statistics for use in

Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA). The datasheet includes guidelines for the use ofthe recommended data and a review of the sources of the data. Most of the data concernmotor vehicles and rail transport, although some data for cyclists are also presented.

Data excludes pedestrians; if this is needed local data will need to be examined.The data in this sheet are intended for two main uses:

Assessing the risk of transporting personnel; data relating to the frequency offatalities and serious injuries to road and rail users are presented.

Assessing the risks of transporting Dangerous Goods (DG); data on the frequency of

releases of hazardous materials from rail and road tankers are presented.

In the sections below the following definitions are used:

Seriously Injured: Any person not killed, but who sustained an injury as result of an

accident, normally needing medical treatment.

Killed: Any person killed immediately or dying within 30 days as a result of anaccident.

Road Injury Accident: Any accident involving at least one road vehicle in motion ona public road or private road to which the public has right of access, resulting in atleast one injured or killed person.

2.0 Summary of Recommended DataIt is best to try and obtain local data where possible. In the absence of local data thefollowing data can be used.

2.1 Road and rail usersThe recommended frequencies and associated data are presented as follows:

Road user (Table 2.1, Table 2.2, and Table 2.3)

Rail user (Table 2.4)

8/12/2019 434-09

6/20


OGP2

Table 2.1 Road Accident Fatality and Injury Rates, Selected Countries, AllVehicles All Rates in deaths or injuries per 109vehicle kilometresCountry Year TrafficVolume

109vehicle kilo-

metres

Frequency ofAccidentsResulting inInjury per 109vehicle

kilometres

Injury Rateper 10

9vehicle

kilometresFatality Rateper109vehicle

kilometres

EuropeAustria 2004 47.8 892.0 1168.0 18.4

Belgium 2004 93.5 520.5 673.7 12.4

Denmark 2005 45.5 118.9 144.7 7.3

Estonia 2005 8.1 288.1 366.6 20.8

Finland 2005 51.6 136.0 174.0 7.3

France 2005 547.6 154.3 197.2 9.7

Latvia 2005 10.2 439.2 550.7 43.5

Lithuania 2005 8.5 796.1 995.4 90.7

Romania 2004 67.9 101.1 82.4 35.6

Slovenia 2005 11.1 928.4 1289.1 23.2

Sweden 2005 73.8 245.3 358.7 6.0

Switzerland 2005 59.9 362.6 446.9 6.8

Turkey 2005 61.1 8732.2 2520.8 74.0

United Kingdom 2005 493.5 402.7 549.2 6.5

AfricaEgypt, Arab Rep. 2004 28.7 72.5 264.9 46.0

Ghana 2001 15.3 1022.9 472.5* 81.1

Senegal 2000 4.0 1497.9 1114.6* 161.0

South Africa 2005 123.4 1067.9 1597.5 116.0America Colombia 2004 15.6 14696.9 - 351.6

Mexico 2005 91.0 323.9 354.7 51.8

United States 2005 4794.3 386.8 563.0 9.1

Asia/ Middle EastArmenia 2005 0.4 2978.4 4027.2 703.7

Bahrain 2002 5.3 308.9 540.0 15.2

China, HK 2005 10.8 1392.8 1763.3 14.0

Israel 2005 41.1 413.5 863.5 10.9

Japan 2004 781.7 1218.1 - 10.9

Korea, Rep. 2005 314.9 680.1 1086.8 20.2

Kyrgyz Republic 2005 10.2 365.4 449.3 87.8

Mongolia 2002 2.3 2897.3 2148.8*

178.8

Singapore 2005 13.8 486.6 596.8 12.6

Ukraine 2005 14.0 3319.7 3999.1 516.3

Oceania New Zealand 2005 40.6 266.1 355.8 9.9

* These appear to be incorrect values as the injury rate should be higher than the injury accidentrate in the previous column.

8/12/2019 434-09

7/20


OGP 3

Table 2.2 Recommended Road Accident Fatal i ty/Injury Rates:Rates by Road Class, Road User Type, Injury SeverityAll Rates in deaths or injuries per 109vehicle kilometresUrban roads Rural Roads Motorways All Roadsoad User

Death SeriousInjury

Death SeriousInjury

Death SeriousInjury

Death SeriousInjury

Pedal Cycle 24 490 58 520 - - 32 500

Motor Cycle 65 1220 200 1220 51 300 120 1140

Car 2 28 7 44 2 9 4 31

Bus or Coach 4 110 3 29 41 11 4 75

LGV 11 6 1 11 1 5 1 8

HGV 11 11 2 17 1 7 1 12

All Vehicles 3 51 8 52 2 10 5 44

In some circumstances a QRA may require road user casualty rates in different units

which take more account of the specific numbers of passengers being transported.Thus Table 2.3 presents recommended road user casualty rates per billion passengerkilometres.

Table 2.3 Recommended Road Accident Fatal i ty/Injury Rates:Rates by Road User Type, Injury Severity All Rates in deaths or injuriesper 109passenger kilometresRoad User Death KSI*Pedal Cycle 36 684

Motor Cycle 111 1360Car 2.7 31

Bus orCoach

0.3 11

LGV/ HGV 0.9 11

* KSI = Killed or Seriously Injured

The values in Tables 2.2 and 2.3 are based on UK data and considered representative ofdeveloped countries with good road safety records. The values from Table 2.1 can beused to generate appropriate modification factors for the rates in Tables 2.2 and 2.3

when applied in different countries. Clearly in any specific situation there will be anumber of factors which will influence accident rates such as driver experience, age,

etc. No data has been found which could represent these influences explicitly.

Table 2.4 Recommended Rail Accident Fatality/Injury RatesAll Rates in deaths or injuriesper bill ion passenger kilometres

Vehicle Type Death InjuryRail 0.4 15

1See footnote 3 on page 7 for explanation of data derivation

8/12/2019 434-09

8/20


OGP4

These rail accident data are considered representative of developed countries. In lessdeveloped parts of the world the accident rates may be larger, but no data sources havebeen found to enable them to be quantified.

2.2 Dangerous Goods Transport

The data below refers to releases while in transit, not during loading or unloading.

Table 2.5 Recommended Rail Tanker Release FrequenciesTANKERTYPE TANK SHELL PUNCTURE(per loaded tank wagonkm)

EQUIPMENT LEAK(per loaded tank wagonhour)Motor spirit 6.3 !10

-8 -

LPG 2.5 !10-9

8.3 !10-10

Ammonia 2.5 !10-9

1.3 !10-9

Chlorine 9.0!

10

-10

3.1!

10

-9

90% of the punctures are taken to be 50 mm diameter holes, the remaining 10%catastrophic ruptures. The lower chlorine release frequencies are due to higher level of

engineering controls, and possibly safer procedural controls related to handling androute management. Data on the causal breakdown of the release frequencies is not

available; both internal causes and causes external to the tanker are reflected in theoverall frequencies.

Table 2.6 Recommended Flammable Liquid Road Tanker ReleaseFrequenciesSPILL SIZE RELEASEFREQUENCY(per loaded vehiclekm)5 - 15 kg15 - 150 kg150 - 1500 kg> 1500 kg

6.0 !10-9

2.6 !10

-8

7.0 !10-9

2.1 !10

-8

TOTAL 6.0 !10-8

Table 2.7 Recommended LPG Road Tanker Release Frequencies (notcylinders)

FAILURE CASE RELEASEFREQUENCY(per loaded vehiclekm)BLEVECold rupture*Large* liquid space leakLarge* vapour space leak

2.7 !10-12

2.6 !10

-9

1.8 !10-8

2.1 !10

-9

* Rupture modelled as instantaneous release and large leak modelled as 50 mm diameter hole

8/12/2019 434-09

9/20


OGP 5

3.0 Guidance on use of data3.1 General validity

If transport risk is a relatively small contribution to an overall risk study, the data above

may be sufficient. However, if transport risk is the object of the study, local databecome very important.

As discussed below in Section 3.3, it is strongly recommended that local data sourceson accidents and transport risk are obtained. This is because there can be large localvariations. In recommending the data in Tables 2.5 to 2.7 on DG transport, there is animplicit assumption that tanker equipment is built to recognised international standards

and operated in line with relevant national DG regulations.

3.2 Uncertainties

3.2.1 Road and Rail User Casualty Frequencies

Due to the relatively large number of road traffic casualties (see Table 4.1 below), the

statistical uncertainties associated with the values in Table 2.2 and Table 2.3 are smallcompared to the variations between countries.

In contrast, national statistics for rail passenger fatalities are generally very low.However, low frequency but high consequence events can have a very large effect onaverage passenger risk levels. Thus it is important to consider data over a reasonably

long time period. The data from Table 2.4 are based on British data 1996-2005 whichincludes a number of major rail accidents; thus it is considered to be representative

with respect to such events.

Uncertainties for road and rail user casualty rates will be dominated by local variations.

Even within geographically close countries, such as within the EU, variations can belarge (see Section 4.0).

A further source of transport uncertainty arises from use of frequency units (e.g. per

vehicle km or per passenger km). The relative risk of various transport modes can behighly dependent on the frequency units adopted. Thus, it is recommended that anyconclusions are tested for their sensitivity to units (see Table 2.2 and Table 2.3).

3.2.2 DG Transport

The frequency of releases of hazardous material during transport is much lower than

the frequency of road traffic accidents. Hence the statistical uncertainty will be larger,similar to typical major hazard QRA uncertainties. In addition, these frequencies will beinfluenced by local variations in road and rail accident rates. Thus, local data should be

obtained wherever practicable.

3.3 Application of frequencies to specific locations

This datasheet contains global data plus more detailed national data. When using thesedata, it should be realised that they may not be directly applicable to the specificlocation under study.

It is therefore strongly recommended that local data sources on accidents and transport

risk from governmental or other national or regional institutions are obtained beforeusing the data given in this sheet.

Should these local data not be accessible, or their reliability/applicability be uncertain,then the data in this data sheet could be used after factoring for local circumstances.

8/12/2019 434-09

10/20


OGP6

However, data which have been adjusted to allow for local circumstances should alwaysbe used with caution.

3.3.1 Road and Rail Transport

In assessing the risks of personnel transport the following steps are recommended:

1. Obtain local data if practicable.

2. If not, use the data in Tables 2.1 to 2.4. For road risks the casualty frequencies canbe adjusted for location using the factors suggested in Section 2.0 and presented in

more detail in Section 4.0 below. Some location specific data for rail are alsopresented in Section 4.0, but it is unclear if the variations are real or are a feature ofdefinitions and reporting criteria.

3. Analyse the proposed personnel journey patterns in terms of vehicle types, roadtypes, vehicle kilometres and/ or passenger kilometres (for rail only passengerkilometres are required).

4. Multiply the frequencies from steps 1 or 2 with the journey pattern data in step 3 toobtain overall personnel transport risks. Conduct sensitivity tests using the differentunits in Table 2.2 and Table 2.3 (if relevant) and alternative data sources discussedin section 4.02.

Example: estimate the fatality rate per year for an operation involving 30personnel being transported 4 t imes a month by bus/ coach along 300km ofmotorway grade road in North Africa.Assuming local data specific to this type of operation are not available steps 2 to 4 areillustrated below.

From Table 2.2 for bus/coach the fatality rate is 4 ! 10-9 per vehicle-km. This is

based on UK data. From Table 2.1 the overall fatality rates in Egypt are 7.1 times

greater than UK. This is taken as an appropriate multiplication factor. Thus thefatality rate is 28.4 !10-9per vehicle-km.

Based on the example information above the number of vehicle-kms per year is 300!4 !12 = 14,400.

Thus the annual predicted fatality rate would be 28.4 ! 10-9 ! 14,400 = 4.1 ! 10-4.Using the data from Table 2.3 which gives a fatality rate per passenger-km gives a

fatality rate per year of 9.2 !10-4.

3.3.2 Dangerous Goods Transport

In assessing the DG transport release frequencies the following steps arerecommended:

1. Obtain local data if practicable.

2. If not, use the data in Tables 2.5 to 2.7 and adjust the release frequencies for locationusing fault tree analysis, expert judgements (e.g. based on relative transportaccident rates), or other appropriate methods.

3. Analyse the proposed DG transport patterns in terms of transport mode (rail/ road),wagon/ vehicle kilometres, loaded tanker hours, etc.

2While there is uncertainty concerning the location variations in the rail data, as noted above,

the location specific data may be used in sensitivity testing.

8/12/2019 434-09

11/20


OGP 7

4. Multiply the frequencies from steps 1 or 2 with the DG transport data in step 3 toobtain overall release frequencies.

Example: Estimate the frequency per year of large vapour space leaks in anLPG operation that involves 5 tankers operating each 7 t imes a week on a200km route fully loaded.Assuming local data specific to this type of operation are not available steps 2 to 4 areillustrated below.

From Table 2.7 the large vapour space leak frequency is 2.1 ! 10-9 per loaded

vehicle-km. Assume that expert judgement concludes that this frequency isappropriate.

Based on the example information above the number of loaded vehicle-kms per yearis 5 !7 !52 !200 = 364,000.

Thus the estimated annual leak frequency is 2.1!10-9!364,000 = 7.6 !10-4.

4.0 Review of data sources4.1 Basis of data presented

4.1.1 Road Transport

Table 2.1 is based on the International Road Federations (IRF) 2007 report [10]. For all

countries except Turkey, the most recent years data presented in this report is taken asrepresentative and presented in Table 2.1 (2005 data for Turkey appears to have an errorin the injury rate). This report also provides accident rates per 100,000 head ofpopulation for a wider range of countries. The data in this table can be compared fortrends to the data in the previous Technical Note for E&P Forum which used the IRFs

1994 report [3].

Table 2.2 and Table 2.3 are based on British data from the Department for Transports2006 report [1]3. Table 4.1 shows the number of fatalities per vehicle type for 2006 onwhich the casualty rates are based.

Table 4.1 GB Numbers of Fatal i t ies 2006: Numbers by Road User TypeSeverityRoad User Death KSI*Pedal Cycle 153 2568

Motor Cycle 634 6992

Car 2580 26713

Bus or Coach 122 1260

LGV 280 2322HGV 419 2119

All vehicles 3172 31845

* KSI = Killed or Seriously Injured

[1] also provides a much greater range of data including trends over time, accident ratesas a function of age, gender, alcohol levels etc.

One of the E&P Forum (as was) member companies collected statistical data in the

1990s from which accident rates for desert driving conditions can be calculated. This

3

In Table 2.1 in 2006 there were no fatalities on urban roads for LGVs and HGVs and no fatalitieson motorways for bus/ coach. For these cells of the table, the recommended fatality rates havebeen set to the All Roads value. In Table 2.2 the rates are based on 1996-2005 data; as noseparate value for HGV is given in Ref. [1] it has been set at the LGV value.

8/12/2019 434-09

12/20


OGP8

data covers a period between 1992 and 1994. The derived desert driving accident andfatality rates are shown in Table 4.2 below and relate to company and contractor workrelated accidents.

Table 4.2 Desert Driving Accident and Fatality RatesYear Road Traffic

(108V km)Road TrafficAccidents Injuries Fatalities Fatality Rate(per 108V km)

1992

1993

1994

0.79

0.89

0.86

137

135

111

56

42

26

4

2

0

5.1

2.3

0.0

The downward trend in the fatality rate was considered to be the result of improvedinduction training, the fitting of roll-over bars and speed governors to all LGVs and thenear 100% usage of seat-belts. This needs to be taken into account when applying the

rates for desert driving at other locations. Deriving an average over the 3 years of 2.4fatalities per 108 vehicle kilometres, this is approximately 5 times higher than the

average all-vehicle GB fatality rate.

4.1.2 Rail Transport

Table 2.4 is based on British data from 1996 to 2005 [1].

In analysing rail casualty data, care needs to be taken to distinguish casualties causedin train incidents, non-train incidents and vandalism/ suicide. Overall fatality numbersare dominated by the latter category. In addition, statistics may include passengers,staff and others (third parties who were neither passengers nor staff, but who were

killed or injured due to rail related activity).

Also there is the need to allow for low frequency but high consequence events whichare characteristic of rail operations. A national railway may experience several years of

very few fatalities and then have one event which kills many tens of people.

It is often difficult to determine what has been included in summary statistics. Table 2.4above is a subset of DfT data comparing various transport modes. It is averaged over10 years and therefore takes account of low frequency/ high consequence events (e.g.Ladbroke Grove, where there were 31 fatalities). The casualty rates relate just to trainpassengers, but from all accident causes not only train accidents such as collisions,

derailments, fires etc.Further details of UK rail accident rates are provided in the UK Office of Rail RegulationAnnual reports [4]. These split out incidents involving passengers, staff and members of

the public, and provide train incident rates, as well as other accident categories such astrespass and vandalism.

The GB data is considered representative of average EU data. Figure 4.1 below is takenfrom the RSSB strategic plan [5] and compares UK passenger fatality rates against the

25 EU countries averages. The UK values are shown to be consistent with the EUvalues except in years when there are major UK disasters. If the major disasters were tobe averaged over a few years, there would be an even closer match.

In recent years the European Railway Agency has begun to collect statistics from all the

European countries. The 2004-2005 Rail Statistics are summarised in Figure 4.2 below

[6]. These data would appear to indicate significant differences between EU countries.However, there is a need to be cautious. The variation could be because of inconsistentreporting criteria or it could reflect low frequency/ high consequence events affecting a

8/12/2019 434-09

13/20


OGP 9

few countries in the time period 2004-2005. Given this uncertainty no potentialmodification factors are suggested in this datasheet.

Figure 4.1 Comparison between GB and EU Average Rail Fatal i ty Rate [5]

Figure 4.2 EU States Rail Fatality Rate [6]

8/12/2019 434-09

14/20


OGP10

US data from the Federal Railroad Administration [7] for 2006 indicates 2 passengerfatalities in 16,211,393,401 passenger miles = 0.08 fatalities per billion passenger km.This is also consistent with UK data for 2004-2005.


Tables 2.5 to 2.7 present a selection of available data suitable for use only wheretransport risks form a small contribution to a process QRA. They should not be used fortransport QRA without detailed consideration of the applicability of the data. In

particular local variations in transport accident rates should be analysed.

4.1.3.1 Rail Tankers

The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Substances (ACDS) of the UK Health & SafetyCommission produced a report in 1991 [8] which provides a detailed QRA of road andrail transport of motor spirit, LPG, ammonia and chlorine in Great Britain, including

puncture frequencies based on modified UK experience and equipment leak frequencies

based on fault tree analysis.

[8] estimated frequencies of tank shell punctures and equipment leaks from tankwagons carrying dangerous goods, based on modified UK data (Table 2.5). The

punctures are taken to be 50 mm diameter holes (90%) or catastrophic ruptures (10%).

4.1.3.2 Liquid Tankers

The best available estimate of leak frequencies from tankers carrying non-pressurised

liquids is also given by [8], based on spills from UK motor spirit tankers (Table 2.6).

4.1.3.3 LPG Road Tanker Leak Frequencies

A DNV Technica report [9] compared various sources of leak frequency data for LPG

road tankers, and developed a fault tree model to take account of the main influences.Table 2.7 gives the failure case frequencies for a tanker with passive fire protection,based on Hong Kong road traffic accident rates.

4.2 Other data sources

4.2.1 Road Transport

The International Road Federation in Geneva collects world road statistics including

data on road accidents from a large number of countries [10]. The data include theannual number of accidents, annual number of injured and killed people as well as thenumber of injury accidents, persons injured or killed per 100 million vehicle kilometres(108V km).

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) maintains roadsafety statistics [2]. It presents international fatality information for different road types.

The OECD website [2] also presents injury rates and fatalities per 100,000 of thepopulation.

The European Conference of Ministers of Transport [11] gives death rates and casualty rates per capitaand per vehicle for European countries and Australia, Canada, Japan, Russia and USA. However, it doesnot have any estimates of vehicle-km.

Davies & Lees [12] give a variety of accident statistics for heavy goods vehicles, drawnmainly from national accident statistics.

8/12/2019 434-09

15/20


OGP 11

Koornstra [24] presents a passenger transport model which includes road transportrisk. Reference risks are first determined based on data from the original 15 EUcountries. Multiplication factors are then developed relating road fatality risks to theGross National Income per person (GNI/p) and plotted on a graph with a fitted function.

Corrections are made for estimated underreporting. The report notes a rather widescatter of fatality rates for individual countries about the curve. For certain countries

there is a difference between the predicted and reliably established risks (where countryspecific data exists). Thus the report proposes an additional multiplication factor wherethere are strong indications that a country is relatively less safe or relatively safer thanother countries with a comparable GNI/p level. Finally a multiplication factor for roadtype proportions is proposed based on the variation in risk that is seen on different road

types. In principle this method can estimate road transport risks for any country in theworld and could be useful when country specific data is not available. The referencerisks are consistent with those presented in this report.

4.2.2 Rail Transport

A Statistical Analysis of Fatal Collisions and Derailments of Passenger Trains on British

Railways[13] provides a detailed analysis of the comparative safety of different designsof passenger carriage on British Railways, including accidents per passenger mile andfatalities per accident.

Frequency of Railway Accidents in the German Federal Railways Network: Goods Traffic andShunting Operations [14] provides a detailed analysis of accident frequencies andinvolvement probabilities for wagons in goods trains in Germany.

Light Rail Accidents in Europe and North America [15] has a detailed comparison of

accident frequencies on light rail systems in different countries.

The report by Koornstra [24] also includes rail transport risk. Reference risks aredetermined based on data from the original 15 EU countries. Multiplication factors are

again developed relating rail fatality risks to the Gross National Income per person(GNI/p). However there is less country data than for road fatalities on which to basethese multiplication factors. Thus, as with road, the report proposes using an

additional multiplication factor where there are strong indications that a country isrelatively less safe or relatively safer than other countries with a comparable GNI/plevel.

Further international information on rail transport safety is available from International

Union of Railways (UIC) at http://www.uic.asso.fr/.


There are a large number of other data sources with information relevant to DGtransport, but generally they are older or less generally applicable than the values givenin Section 2.0.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) [16] provides information for

explosive, flammable and otherwise dangerous chemicals. It presents failure rateswhich originate from several sources. The age of the background data and theindividual sources may no longer reflect the reliability of transport vehicles on the roadsand railways today because of stricter safety regulations for both vehicles and materialstransportation. The individual sources contain information about accident rates fortrucks used in the petroleum industry and for transporting bulk hazardous materials([17] to [23]).

8/12/2019 434-09

16/20


OGP12

5.0 Recommended data sources for further informationFor further information, the data sources used to develop the release frequenciespresented in Section 2.0 and discussed in Sections 3.0 and 4.0 should be consulted.

The references used for the recommended data in Section 2.0 are shown in bold inSection 6.0.

6.0 References[1] Department for Transport 2006. Road Casualt ies Great Britain 2006

http://www.dft.gov.uk/162259/162469/221412/221549/227755/rcgb2006v1.pdf

[2] OECD, International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Grouphttp://cemt.org/IRTAD/IRTADPublic/we2.html

[3] International Road Federation (IRF) 1994. World Road Statistics 1980-1993[4] Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) 2006. Annual Report on Railway Safety2005 . http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/296.pdf[5] UK Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) 2007. The Railway Strategic Safety Plan

2008-2010.

[6] European Railway Agency (ERA) 2006.A Summary of 2004-2005 EU Statistics onRailway Safety.

http://www.era.europa.eu/public/Documents/Safety/Safety_Performance/07-05%20ERA-Report2.pdf

[7] US Federal Railroad Administration website:http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/

[8] ACDS 1991. Major Hazard Aspects of the Transport of DangerousSubstances , Advisory Committee on Dangerous Substances, HealthSafety Commission, HMSO.[9] DNV Technica 1996. Quantitat ive Risk Assessment of the Transport ofLPG and Naphtha in Hong Kong - Methodology Report Report forElectrical Mechanical Services Department, Hong Kong Government,Project C6124.[10] International Road Federation 2007. The IRF World Road Stat ist ics2007 Data 2000-2005 .[11] ECMT 1998. Statistical Report on Road Accidents 1993/1994, European Conference of

Ministers of Transport, OECD, Paris.[12] Davies, P.A. & Lees, F.P. 1992. The Assessment of Major Hazards: The Road

Transport Environment for Conveyance of Hazardous Materials in Great Britain,J.Haz. Mat., 32, 41-79.

[13] Evans, A.W. 1997. A Statistical Analysis of Fatal Collisions and Derailments ofPassenger Trains on British Railways: 1967-1996,Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., 211 Part F.

[14] Fett, H-J & Lange, F 1992. Frequency of Railway Accidents in the German Federal

Railways.[15] Walmsley, D.A. 1992. Light Rail Accidents in Europe and North America, ResearchReport 335, Transport & Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, UK

[16] Federal Emergency Management Agency. Handbook of Chemical Hazard Analysis

Procedures, available from Federal Emergency Management Agency, PublicationsOffice, 500 C Street, SW, Washington, DC 20472

[17] American Petroleum Institute 1983. Summary of Motor Vehicle Accidents in the

Petroleum Industry for 1982.[18] Dennis, A.W. et al. 1978 Severities of Transportation Accidents Involving Large

Packages, Sandia Laboratories, NTIS SAND-77-0001.[19] Rhoads, R.E. et al. 1978An Assessment of the Risk of Transporting Gasoline by Truck,

prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy, PNL-

2133.

8/12/2019 434-09

17/20


OGP 13

[20] Smith, R.N. and E.L. Wilmot 1982. Truck Accident and Fatality Rates Calculated fromCalifornia Highway Accident Statistics for 1980 and 1981, prepared by Sandia NationalLaboratories for the U.S. Department of Energy, SAND-82-7066.

[21] National Safety Council. 1988Accident Facts.

[22] Ichniowski T. 1984 New Measures to Bolster Safety in Transportation, ChemicalEngineering, pp. 35-39.

[23] Urbanek, G.L. and E.J. Barber 1980. Development of Criteria to Designate Routes forTransporting Hazardous Materials, prepared by Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Co. forthe Federal Highway Administration, NTIS PB81-164725.

[24] Koornstra, M.J. 2008.A Model for the Determination of the Safest Mode of PassengerTransport between Locations in any Region of the World. Report for Shell International

Exploration and Production B.V.

8/12/2019 434-09

18/20

8/12/2019 434-09

19/20

For further information and publications,please visit our website at

www.ogp.org.uk

8/12/2019 434-09

20/20

- Blackfriars RoadLondon SE NLUnited KingdomTelephone: + () Fax: + ()

Bd du Souverain

th FloorB- Brussels, BelgiumTelephone: + () Fax: + ()

I k