Next Article in Journal
Mediating Power of Place Attachment for Urban Residents’ Well-Being in Community Cohesion
Next Article in Special Issue
Structured Risk Identification for Sustainable Safety in Mixed Autonomous Traffic: A Layered Data-Driven Approach
Previous Article in Journal
Behavior Prediction of Connections in Eco-Designed Thin-Walled Steel–Ply–Bamboo Structures Based on Machine Learning for Mechanical Properties
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Review of Internet of Things Approaches for Vehicle Accident Detection and Emergency Notification
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 15
10.3390/su17156754
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Problem of the Comparability of Road Accident Data from Different European Countries

by
Mariola Nycz
and
Marek Sobolewski
*
Department of Quantitative Methods, Faculty of Management, Rzeszow University of Technology, al. Powstańców Warszawy 12, 35-959 Rzeszów, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(15), 6754; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156754
Submission received: 15 April 2025 / Revised: 19 July 2025 / Accepted: 21 July 2025 / Published: 24 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Collection Accident Prevention and Risk Management for Safe and Sustainable Transportation)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

(1) Background: The number of casualties due to car accidents in Europe is decreasing. However, there are still very large differences in the levels of road safety between countries, even within the European Union. Therefore, it is vital to conduct reliable international analyses to compare the effectiveness of actions taken to prevent road accidents. Information on the number of accidents, injuries, and fatalities can be found in various databases (e.g., Eurostat or OECD). In this paper, it is clearly shown that data on car accidents and the resulting injuries are not comparable between different countries, and any conclusions drawn using these data as their basis will be erroneous. (2) Methods: The indicators of the number of car accidents, injured people, and fatalities in relation to the number of inhabitants were determined, then their distribution and mutual correlations were examined for a group of selected European countries. (3) Results: There is no correlation between the indicators of the number of car accidents and injuries and the indicator of fatalities. An assessment of road safety based on these indicators would result in inconsistent and ambiguous conclusions. (4) Conclusions: It has been empirically shown that data on the number of car accidents and injured people from different countries are not comparable. These conclusions were verified by providing examples of the definitions of an injured person used in different countries. This paper clearly indicates that any international comparisons can only be made based on data regarding the number of road accident fatalities.

1. Introduction

Road safety is an extremely broad issue. It is most often defined by an assessment of the number of road accidents, injured people, and fatalities within a given period [1]. Over the last quarter-century, the number of people dying in road accidents has declined significantly in all European Union countries (Table 2). However, road accidents are still one of the main causes of injuries and deaths worldwide, which makes them an important area of research, analysis, and forecasting, as well as when identifying the main factors influencing their occurrence [2,3]. According to the WHO, road accidents are the 12th most common cause of death worldwide, regardless of age. Moreover, they are the main cause of death among children, adolescents, and adults, from the ages of 5 to 29 [4].
Research on road safety includes, among other topics, an analysis of the causes and effects of road accidents, an assessment of the effectiveness of road safety measures, the design of road infrastructure, research on driver behavior, and the impact of environmental factors on road safety. Scientists address the development of new technologies and innovative solutions to improve road safety. Previous research also includes an analysis of trends and statistics of road accidents, with a view to identifying those areas that require further corrective action to increase road safety, increase awareness, and find effective measures to prevent tragic events on the roads. Road accident research aims at creating tools that will provide a safer transport environment and protect human life.
While data on fatal accidents are most often complete and unambiguous, a lack of information on non-fatal accidents is often reported, which can result in the incorrect identification of important factors influencing the severity of the accident. The levels of underestimation vary, depending on the country. Non-fatal accidents in urban areas are reported more often, but it should be remembered that accidents without casualties represent a dataset particularly affected by the problem of incomplete data reporting.
Incomplete or incorrect reporting leads to contradictory (inconsistent) or inaccurate data. Official accident statistics may not reflect the actual number of incidents for various reasons, including, for instance, a failure to notify the police in the event of there being no other participant in the accident, or because there are no visible injuries to the injured parties, or due to a private settlement between the parties. In addition, this may be due to misclassification resulting from issues with data collection at the accident scene, and the fact that the nature and degree of injuries are often not obvious to the police. In order to assess the level of road safety in a given country, international comparisons should also be made. One of the basic principles of effective management is the search for patterns (and then using them by copying appropriate legal and road solutions) and anti-patterns. However, there is a certain problem with such research since accident statistics, when viewed from an international perspective and even within European Union countries, are simply not comparable.
The diagram below (Figure 1) briefly presents basic information about the research problem, practical significance, data, and methods, along with the results and conclusions contained in our work.

2. Literature Review

The European Commission initiative to improve road safety, which was developed in 2010, assumed that the number of fatalities and seriously injured people would reduce by half by 2020 in the EU. Unfortunately, the initiative has not been fully implemented. A positive exception is Switzerland, Norway, and Greece, where it was possible to approach the assumed reduction target by 50% [5,6,7]. The next goals of the European Commission and the Stockholm Declaration refer to an additional 50% reduction in the number of casualties in the years 2020–2030. The Declaration also defines the final goal of the European Commission to achieve “Vision Zero”, i.e., zero fatalities or serious injuries in road traffic incidents by 2050 [8,9,10]. It should be emphasized, however, that these goals refer to the absolute number of accidents, while the accident rates in relation to the number of inhabitants, and especially cars and traffic intensity, have improved much more.
The classification of accident severity [11,12,13] may also vary from country to country because the police, in some cases, only register accidents and classify the scene when the damage exceeds a certain value.
This lack of comparability results from the different definitions of an injured person, and consequently of an accident [14], which is usually defined as a road incident in which there are injuries. Therefore, all statistics and indicators that use data on the number of accidents or the number of injured people should not be analyzed from an international perspective. The only quantity that can be analyzed is the number of fatal accidents.
Unfortunately, despite these reservations, accident or injury rates per million inhabitants are often calculated in studies, reports, and research, although the conclusions drawn using them as their basis have no substantive value. An example would be comparisons between countries [15], or comparisons between EU countries concerning the number of accidents (the number of injured people and the number of fatalities per hundred accidents), as appearing in the Polish annual police reports [16]. Of course, the absolute number of fatalities cannot be the only measure of safety, as European Union countries differ in terms of the number of inhabitants (population), the level of motorization, or the demand for road transport. To sum up, the main objective of this work is to verify the usefulness of data on road accidents for international comparisons.
EU countries create a road accident database according to the procedures adopted in the given country (national protocols and forms) and using road accident documentation collected by the police. In Denmark, Slovenia, Spain, Greece, the Netherlands, and Sweden, among others, the data collected by the police are supplemented by the data collected by hospitals or other government organizations. The data collected and presented by Eurostat, in cases where national concepts are significantly different from European ones, use correction factors to ensure their consistency [17]. Scientific research on road safety analyzes various aspects of this safety, including:
  • Technological research concerning the introduction of new technologies in vehicles—such as automatic control systems or technological solutions in the field of safety, including electric cars [18,19,20].
  • Legal and political research focuses on the analysis of changes in road traffic regulations—speed limits, priority at pedestrian crossings, a ban on using mobile phones while driving, or government initiatives aimed at improving road safety [21,22,23].
  • Infrastructural research related to the impact of the condition of road infrastructure on safety, along with dependencies occurring in this area [24,25,26].
  • Health and psychological analyses of the impact of drivers’ emotional states on their behavior on the road, public awareness of road safety, stress level, fatigue, health condition in the context of the risk of causing an incident in road traffic, and the health effects of these road accidents [27,28,29].
  • Demographic analyses of the relationship between the driver’s age and the number of road accidents caused [30,31].
  • Economic analyses related to the costs of road accidents in terms of productivity losses [32,33,34,35,36].

3. Materials and Methods

The aim of the research conducted in this paper is to assess the comparability of road safety indicators in European countries. Assessment of the level of road safety, together with the exchange of information on the outcome of initiatives, is an important issue of sustainable development.
In the current paper, Eurostat data, supplemented by data from the OECD, were employed. The analyses presented in this study concern 32 European countries: 27 EU countries, along with Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. The scope of the analyses is limited by Eurostat resources, in which road accident statistics from these countries can be found. Some of the individual elements of missing data and data for the United Kingdom from 2020 have been supplemented from OECD databases. The time range of the analyses is 1999–2023, although, due to the limited volume of this work, most of the key analyses concern the most up-to-date data.
Verification of the research objective required the use of various research instruments. This paper is empirical in nature. The analysis consisted of graphically and tabularly presenting the problem of the distribution of road safety indicators, featuring possible causes of differences and discrepancies in the comparability of European countries in terms of the indicators used. Basic statistical measures were used for the assessment, including the variability index. In addition, the correlation between indicators was examined, and dynamics analysis was used for cross-sectional and time comparisons of the road accident casualty rate per million inhabitants in the selected years.

4. Results

4.1. Number of Road Accidents, Injuries, and Fatalities from 1999 to 2023

In 1999, 59.2 thousand people died in road accidents in the 32 EU countries included in this paper, while in 2023, the number was almost three times lower and only accounted for 22.7 thousand. Using OECD databases, the graph shows the number of accident casualties in an even longer period of over 50 years (Figure 2).
In the early 1970s, more than 90,000 people died on the roads of countries that are now part of the EU-27, as well as in Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, a figure that is four times higher than today. It is worth adding that 452 million people lived in the countries under analysis at that time, compared to 530 million people in 2023. The number of cars and the intensity of car traffic are also not comparable, having increased by several times over the last half-century. As a result of not always reliable but very emotionally charged media coverage, many people have an image in their minds of exceptional danger being associated with traveling by car, while the exact opposite is true. As one can see, road safety in most European countries is systematically improving.

4.2. Road Safety Indicators in International Comparisons

Comparative analysis is a very important element of road safety management. Countries are looking for and will continue to look for “patterns” from which to draw ideas for solutions concerning infrastructure, road legislation, or the functioning of emergency medical services. International organizations that recommend the introduction of new solutions aimed at improving road safety must conduct comparative analyses in order to assess their effectiveness. When looking for the causes of road accidents, it is absolutely necessary to conduct international analyses, because such analysis allows us to determine the impact of certain factors that are always the same in a given country, e.g., speed limits or the number of financial penalties for breaking the law. Using an analogy from medical statistics, data on accidents from another country constitute a reference point, a kind of control group. Eurostat and OECD databases provide data on the number of accidents (injury from car accidents), the number of injured persons, and the number of fatalities (either killed persons or fatalities). Due to the different sizes of the various countries, these data are not comparable, and it is necessary to calculate those indicators for which the reference point may be the number of inhabitants, the number of cars, or the lengths of roads. For many reasons, the best, most universal, and most frequently used point of reference is the number of inhabitants. Therefore, the following three road safety indicators can be calculated [37,38,39,40]:
  • The accident indicator, which is usually calculated per 100,000 inhabitants (1);
  • The injured indicator, which is usually calculated per 100,000 inhabitants (2);
  • The fatality indicator, which is usually calculated per 1 million inhabitants (3).
Table 1 presents selected descriptive statistics for the specified indicators within 32 European countries for the year 2023. In turn, two maps visualize the spatial distribution of the fatality indicator per 1 million inhabitants and the accident indicator per 100,000 inhabitants (Figure 3).
The analysis of the results in Table 1, and especially on the maps (Figure 3), leads to two important research questions. First, why is the variability (CV) of accident (57.3%) and injury (62.7%) indicators so much greater than the variability of the accident casualty indicator (38.2%)? Second, how should we compare the level of road safety in different countries if we receive clearly contradictory information? For example, in 2023:
  • According to the accident indicator, Germany is in the penultimate 29th position, but according to the casualty indicator, it is in a high 9th place;
  • Poland has a low accident indicator (4th place), but a high casualty indicator (23rd place);
  • Sweden, which has a clearly worse accident indicator value than Poland (12th place), is in the very high 3rd place when it comes to the casualty indicator.
As one can see, there is no connection between the accident and casualty indicators, and some conclusions drawn from them are even contradictory. There may be two reasons: either accidents in different countries have a diametrically different scale of severity, or the given values are not comparable. As for the first explanation, this is highly unlikely—the analysis concerns European countries and there is no reason to assume that drivers in Poland or Sweden cause accidents with consequences that are many times more tragic than those in Germany or Austria, and the level of health care or emergency medical services is similar. However, the issue of non-comparability may be a consequence of using different definitions.

4.3. Correlations Between Road Safety Indicators

The inconsistency of information contained in the casualty indicator and the accident indicator, established on the basis of previous analyses, is confirmed by the lack of correlation between these values (similarly, there is no correlation between the casualty indicator and the injuries indicator). The linear correlation coefficient (for the casualty indicator and the accident indicator) is only 0.05, which means an almost exemplary lack of dependence. Both indicators are, therefore, not correlated (Figure 4).
The graph presents a comparison of two indicators for the year 2023. However, an identical situation occurred for each year—Table 2 presents the results of the correlation analysis of the three indicators considered in the selected years of 1999, 2004, 2009, 2014, 2019, and 2023, but, as checked, in no period was there any correlation between the indicator of people killed and the other two indicators.

4.4. Reasons for Discrepancies in the Data on Accidents, Injuries, and Fatalities

As one can see, the problem is that data on the number of road accidents in different countries actually reference different events. This is due to the lack of a uniform definition of a road accident and an injured person in European countries. However, for obvious reasons, there are no such differences in the definition of a fatality—such a death is considered to be that of a person who died at the scene (in the vast majority of cases) or who died in hospital within 30 days after the accident. In most countries, a road accident is an event in which at least one person is injured. So where is the discrepancy? Namely, their definitions of an injured person are different [41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50]. For instance, an injured person is a person who:
  • In Poland, suffered physical or mental damage to health (severe disability, incurable or long-term life-threatening illness, inability to continue working in their profession, mental illness, or health disorder) for a period longer than 7 days, or a person for whom a doctor or paramedic diagnosed bodily injuries or damage to health lasting a maximum of 7 days (slightly injured person).
  • In Germany suffered physical or mental injuries and was hospitalized for at least 24 h (serious injuries) or someone whose injuries were minor and none of the participants in the accident required hospitalization (this is a much more liberal definition than in Poland, and the proverbial scratch may be a reason to consider a given person injured).
  • In Hungary, suffered serious physical injuries (fractures, shocks, or deep cuts) or mental injuries and was hospitalized for more than 8 days (serious injuries), or, in the case of a slightly injured person, when the injuries did not require a longer hospitalization (of less than 8 days).
  • In Austria, suffered health problems, personal difficulties, or were incapacitated for work for more than 24 days, or such a person (in the case of minor injuries) whose injuries did not require a longer hospitalization or long-term convalescence (up to 24 days).
In many countries, injured people are divided up according to the severity of their injuries—most countries define seriously injured casualties as those who were hospitalized or were in hospital according to police information [51]. Definitions of seriously injured persons are included, for example, in the document ‘Ranking EU progress on road safety’ [52]. There are, however, definitions of accident severity that have been adopted by international organizations like Eurostat or the International Transport Forum (IRTAD), which classify road accident casualties according to the severity of their injuries into three groups: minor injuries, serious injuries, and death. A seriously injured person is considered to be any injured person who spent more than 24 h in hospital. In 2013, the European Commission developed a common definition of serious injuries as non-fatal road accident casualties with an MAIS3+ injury level [53,54,55]. However, the methodologies for estimating the number of casualties according to MAIS3+ still differ significantly between countries. The advantage of correctly classifying the severity of injuries of road accident participants may be an important factor when taking appropriate action to reduce the number of accidents and improve the road infrastructure [56].

4.5. Classification of the Analyzed Countries According to the Level of Road Safety from 1999 to 2002

After establishing a clear criterion for comparing countries, the time scope of the analysis was extended to the years from 1999 to 2023 because, in the analysis of the effectiveness of road safety management, not only is the actual state important but also the dynamics of the phenomenon. Figure 5 shows the number of accident casualties per million inhabitants in the European countries considered, with the selected countries with different indicator in the 90s. A favorable phenomenon of convergence of the accident casualty indicator toward lower values is visible.
Then, the fatality indicators per million inhabitants for each of the analyzed countries were presented, in the selected years of 1999, 2004, 2009, 2014, 2019, and 2023 (Table 3). The use of a color scale in the auxiliary table below facilitates both cross-sectional and time comparisons.
The casualty indicators per million inhabitants in the analyzed countries decreased significantly. Only in the case of small countries, i.e., Malta, Cyprus, and Luxembourg, where fatal accidents can be considered “rare events”, does the indicator based on their number show large random fluctuations, and the downward trend does not seem to be so clear—this is especially visible for Malta. The lowest rate of road accident casualties per million inhabitants is characteristic of the Scandinavian countries (Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and Denmark). In contrast, the highest level of road accident casualties is characteristic of Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, and Greece. Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are the countries in which the number of fatalities per million inhabitants decreased the most notably in the analyzed period.
The countries of Eastern and Central Europe are characterized by a level of safety that is lower than the EU average, due to infrastructure that is not adapted to traffic, including a low level of density of motorways and expressways, or the technical condition of owned vehicles. Another important factor is the low level of social capital and knowledge about road safety [57].

5. Discussion

Given the lack of comparability of data from different countries on the number of injured people, and, consequently, data on the number of accidents, as demonstrated in this article, it is questionable whether to present the data in international databases such as Eurostat or OECD. Of course, one can compare the dynamics of the number of injured people or accidents for individual countries, but, for most people who do not delve into definitional issues, the mere fact of presenting the data in a cross-sectional table suggests their full comparability. Unfortunately, many scientists and many institutions are not aware of this bias, publishing such rankings or even drawing conclusions from them. Below are some examples of such erroneous comparisons and analyses. In the UN Statistics of Road Traffic Accidents (Europe and North America) report issued in 2021, Table D [58] presents the rate of injuries and accidents per million inhabitants in several dozen countries, which clearly suggests the possibility of conducting reliable international comparisons using it as a basis. There is no comment in the text of the report on the practically zero cognitive value of these two indicators. These indicators are not correlated at all with the casualty rate, similarly to what is shown in Figure 4 for European countries. In light of the results presented in this article, this finding is obvious, but, as you can see, even such an opinion-forming institution as the UN did not avoid the error of presenting such indicators as an international basis for comparison, the calculation and comparison of which simply does not make sense. One may ask what information and understanding of the issue of road safety the reader will gain from seeing that in Germany, the rate of injured people per million inhabitants is 4624, while in Denmark, it is only 529. Meanwhile, the rate of fatal accidents per million inhabitants in these countries is almost identical—37 and 34 (data in the report come from 2019).
The annual report on road accidents published by the police in Poland [59] includes a ranking of countries according to the number of victims per 100 accidents. In the 2024 report, the highest value of this indicator was calculated for Poland—9.0 victims per 100 accidents—while the lowest was for Germany at 1.0 victims per 100 accidents. Such a comparison, additionally presented on a graph, clearly suggests significant differences between countries, which is sometimes commented on by the media as evidence of the exceptional recklessness of Polish drivers. Meanwhile, this difference should not be the subject of any conclusions at all because it is the result of the lack of comparability of data on the number of injured people, which is caused by the different definitions of an injured person.
Even the ministerial report on the prospects for the development of transport in Poland [60,61] contains a reference to the road accident severity indicator in European countries: “11% of accidents resulted in a fatal outcome, in most European countries this indicator did not exceed 5%”. This list is, firstly, unreliable because the number of accidents, due to differences in definitions, cannot be a reference point for the number of fatalities. Such a list results in the overinterpretation of negative, irresponsible behavior in Polish drivers, diverting attention from the issue of road infrastructure, which was at a very poor level in Poland at that time.
Unfortunately, unreliable comparisons referenced in sample reports of international and state institutions also appear in scientific publications. It is harsh to blame the authors, who rightly assumed that the data presented in the OECD, Eurostat, or UN databases are comparable because, otherwise, they should not be included in common sources.
In a previous article [62] concerning a comparison of road safety in Poland, the Czech Republic, and Germany, the conclusion is: “The highest severity of accidents occurs in Poland and amounts to over 10”. This is another example of an unjustified comparison of data on the number of accidents and erroneous conclusions being drawn. Almost identical comparisons and conclusions, only involving a different group of countries, are presented in another publication [14].
Another example is a publication on the effects of road accidents among vulnerable road users (pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists) [63]. The authors mention the discrepancy in definitions, but they still compare and contrast the number of fatalities and injuries. Of course, comparing these numbers causes information chaos since the conclusions being drawn from the comparison of fatalities are different from those drawn from the number of injuries. The authors should refer to the lack of comparability of data on the number of injuries and should focus only on the comparison of fatalities among vulnerable road users.
The problem of data comparability is raised in some EU reports, but it is too weakly stated and, as can be seen from the above discussion, due to the necessarily selective review of reports and publications containing unjustified comparisons, it should also be more clearly emphasized in scientific publications.
Although chapter 2.3 of the EU Progress on Road Safety Ranking [52] highlighted the large differences in the number of people considered to be seriously injured in road accidents in EU countries, this issue was not clearly highlighted. The authors of the aforementioned report also emphasize that this is partly the result of different data collection methods or the level of their reporting. The smaller the injuries, the greater their underestimation in reports, especially when the accident did not involve a passenger car or other motor vehicle. The report also indicates that the level of reporting of serious injuries by the police varies between countries, which results not only from legal regulations (i.e., the definitions used and the method of qualifying injuries) but also as a consequence of insurance policies, differences in road use, and police resources and procedures (quality of data collection). This is precisely the case in Germany, where all collisions with injuries are recorded.
This report does not present the huge scale of discrepancies between the information and the conclusions drawn from international comparisons of the number of accidents or injured people in relation to reliable comparisons of the number of fatalities. This paper clearly presents not only the inconsistency of data on fatalities and injured people (accidents) but also the contradictions between them.
To sum up, the lack of comparability among the definitions of ‘injured people’ in road accidents in different countries may also affect the assessment of the achievement of the goals set by the European Union regarding reducing the numbers of accidents or of injured people. The liberal definition of an injured person in Germany means that in 2022, out of 1.13 million road traffic-related injuries reported to Eurostat from the EU-27 countries, as many as one-third of these were attributed to road accidents in Germany. In this situation, any change to the definition and method of collecting data in Germany, or even an actual improvement in road safety in this country, will have a disproportionate impact on improving the injury rates for the EU-27. Such aberrations significantly hinder the assessment of changes in the level of road safety in the entire community and the achievement of EU goals.
Therefore, due to the lack of comparability of data on the number of injured people and, consequently, the number of accidents, the indicators based on these values are also non-comparable. The final classification of European countries according to the level of road safety should, therefore, be prepared based on the only sensible measure of the level of road safety, which is an indicator based on the number of victims. The number of victims can be related to the number of cars, the length of roads, the traffic intensity (in passenger-kilometers), or simply the number of inhabitants, which seems to be the most universal approach.
Finally, it should be emphasized that even if, in the future, data on the number of injured people (or the number of accidents) in different countries are collected according to the same criteria and are comparable, this will not change the fact that information for previous years will still not be able to be the basis for reliable analyses.

6. Conclusions

Until the definition of ‘injured persons’ (and, therefore, the definition of ‘accident’) is unified in different countries, these values should not be used in international comparisons. However, even if such unification were to occur, it would be necessary to include information that the data from previous years were not comparable—worse still, if the definition changes, time comparisons will not be possible, even within one country. Therefore, the authors of the paper recommend providing information on the number of accidents or the injured in Eurostat or OECD (and other) databases along with clear information about their uselessness for international comparisons. It is also necessary to emphasize that only data on the number of road accident fatalities can be the subject of international comparisons.
Road safety is an important social issue, as well as an important element of European policy. It is worth emphasizing that although many actions in the field of road safety have been implemented, much remains to be done. The need for a comprehensive approach to improving road safety, one that combines legislative and enforcement measures with building public awareness and encouraging the active involvement of local communities, is also highlighted by the authors of an earlier article named “Sustainable development through strategic road safety management: a regional approach” [64].
First of all, it is necessary to standardize the definitions (the differences are the result of different legal or statistical systems). Individual countries collect and then analyze statistical data on road accidents in different ways. Certainly, the construction of a new system for collecting information on road safety would make it possible to improve the policy regarding this area of reporting at the managerial level. It would be necessary to define and standardize both the procedures and standards for collecting and sharing data, as well as the process of collecting data by the police. However, these actions should be preceded by standardizing the definitions.
Classifications of the level of road safety in countries should be prepared as an indicator, based on the number of casualties in relation to the number of cars, the length of roads, or, as the most universal measure, the number of inhabitants in the country.
In the transition period, the best solution seems to be to collect data according to the current method of reporting and the one that is standardized for all countries (double reporting). In this way, it will be possible to continue analysis according to the current rules, which will allow for conducting further research on a national scale, while recording changes and dependencies. In contrast, unified reporting will also allow for making detailed analyses on an international scale (other than those based on the aforesaid indicator regarding the number of fatalities in road accidents).
A limitation of this study is that the conclusions regarding the lack of comparability of data on the number of accidents and injuries apply only to the European countries analyzed and to data from the last 25 years. However, it should be remembered that the lack of comparability of European data also prevents reliable analysis in any broader group of countries. The question also remains whether such inconsistencies will appear within another group of countries—for example, in Asia.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.N. and M.S.; methodology, M.N. and M.S.; formal analysis, M.N. and M.S.; investigation, M.N. and M.S.; resources, M.N. and M.S.; data curation, M.N. and M.S.; writing—original draft preparation, M.N. and M.S.; writing—review and editing, M.N. and M.S.; visualization, M.N. and M.S.; supervision, M.N. and M.S.; project administration, M.N. and M.S.; funding acquisition, M.N. and M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Łukasik, Z.; Szymanek, A. Safety and risk in road traffic: Selected problems. Transp. Probl. Int. Sci. J. 2012, 7, 83–94. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahmed, S.K.; Mohammed, M.G.; Abdulqadir, S.O.; El-Kader, R.G.A.; El-Shall, N.A.; Chandran, D.; Rehman, M.E.U.; Dhama, K. Road traffic accidental injuries and deaths: A neglected global health issue. Health Sci. Rep. 2023, 6, e1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Naeem, Z. Road traffic injuries—Changing trend? Int. J. Health Sci. 2010, 4, v–viii. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  4. World Health Organization. Global Status Report on Road Safety 2023; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2023; p. 3. Available online: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/375016/9789240086517-eng.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 14 April 2025).
  5. ITF. Road Safety Annual Report 2024; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2024; Available online: https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/irtad-road-safety-annual-report-2024.pdf (accessed on 14 April 2025).
  6. International Transport Forum. Road Safety Annual Report 2022; OECD: Paris, France, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ślusarczyk, B.; Kozłowska, M.A. Levels of road safety in the European Union and ITS spitial diversity. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2023, 30, 121–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tomašković, M.; Završki, I. Analysis of the road safety in the EU countries and the impact of PBM on its improvement. Organ. Technol. Manag. Constr. Int. J. 2024, 16, 123–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. European Commission. Annual Statistical Report on Road Safety in the EU, 2025; European Road Safety Observatory; European Commission, Directorate General for Transport: Brussels, Belgium, 2025; Available online: https://road-safety.transport.ec.europa.eu/document/download/17d70e9c-d9c4-4273-b497-41b61194e808_en?filename=ERSOnext_AnnualReport_20250227.pdf (accessed on 14 April 2025).
  10. European Commission. Annual Statistical Report on Road Safety in the EU; European Road Safety Observatory; Directorate General for Transport: Brussels, Belgium, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  11. Elvik, R.; Mysen, A. Incomplete accident reporting: Meta-analysis of studies made in 13 Countries. Transp. Res. Rec. 1999, 1665, 133–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Savolainen, P.T.; Mannering, F.L.; Lord, D.; Quddus, M.A. The statistical analysis of highway crash-injury severities: A review and assessment of methodological alternatives. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2011, 43, 1666–1676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Casado-Sanz, N.; Guirao, B.; Attard, M. Analysis of the Risk Factors Affecting the Severity of Traffic Accidents on Spanish Crosstown Roads: The Driver’s Perspective. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Szczęsny, P.; Rymarz, J. Korelacja wybranych wskaźników bezpieczeństwa ruchu drogowego na przykładzie Polski i krajów sąsiednich. Czas. Tech. Mech. 2012, 109, 153–162. [Google Scholar]
  15. Available online: https://polskiobserwator.de/liczba-ofiar-smiertelnych-na-drogach-w-polsce-i-w-niemczech (accessed on 14 April 2025).
  16. Wypadki Drogowe—Raporty Roczne. Komenda Główna Policji. Biuro Ruchu Drogowego. Wydział Opiniodawczo-Analityczny. Available online: https://statystyka.policja.pl/st/ruch-drogowy/76562,Wypadki-drogowe-raporty-roczne.html (accessed on 14 April 2025).
  17. Eurostat. Road Traffic Deaths, by Type of Roads. 2023. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/en/sdg_11_40_esmsip2.htm (accessed on 14 April 2025).
  18. Rauf, M.; Kumar, L.; Zulkifli, S.A.; Jamil, A. Aspects of artificial intelligence in future electric vehicle technology for sustainable environmental impact. Environ. Chall. 2024, 14, 100854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Alanazi, F. Electric Vehicles: Benefits, Challenges, and Potential Solutions for Widespread Adaptation. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Furlan, A.D.; Kajaks, T.; Tiong, M.; Lavallière, M.; Campos, J.L.; Babineau, J.; Haghzare, S.; Ma, T.; Vrkljan, B. Advanced vehicle technologies and road safety: A scoping review of the evidence. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2020, 147, 105741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Mikusova, M.; Wachnicka, J.; Zukowska, J. Research on the use of mobile devices and headphones on pedestrian crossings—Pilot case study from Slovakia. Safety 2021, 7, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Frej, D.; Jaśkiewicz, M.; Poliak, M. Pedestrian and driver safety problems caused by the use of a mobile phone—Pilot studies. Arch. Transp. 2024, 70, 97–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Castillo-Manzano, J.I.; Castro-Nuño, M.; López-Valpuesta, L.; Vassallo, F.V. The complex relationship between increases to speed limits and traffic fatalities: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Saf. Sci. 2019, 111, 287–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Benoît, F. Impact of infrastructure and local environment on road unsafety: Logistic modeling with spatial autocorrelation. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2004, 36, 1055–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Papadimitriou, E.; Filtness, A.; Theofilatos, A.; Ziakopoulos, A.; Quigley, C.; Yannis, G. Review and ranking of crash risk factors related to the road infrastructure. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2019, 125, 85–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Trojanowski, P. Comparative analysis of the impact of road infrastructure development on road safety—A case study. Zesz. Nauk. Akad. Morskiej W Szczecinie 2020, 63, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhang, Q.; Qu, W.; Ge, Y.; Sun, X.; Zhang, K. The effect of the emotional state on driving performance in a simulated car-following task. Transp. Res. Part. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2020, 69, 349–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chitme, H.R.; Al-Kashmiri, A.; Al-Thehli, H.M.; Al-Qanoobi, M.J.; Al-Mushefri, M.M.; Venuvgopal, J. Impact of Medical Conditions and Medications on Road Traffic Safety. Oman Med. J. 2018, 33, 316–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Másilková, M. Health and social consequences of road traffic accidents. Kontakt 2017, 19, e43–e47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. McCarty, D.; Kim, H.W. Risky behaviors and road safety: An exploration of age and gender influences on road accident rates. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0296663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Regev, S.; Rolison, J.J.; Moutari, S. Crash risk by driver age, gender, and time of day using a new exposure methodology. J. Saf. Res. 2018, 66, 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Sakhapov, R.; Nikolaeva, R. Economic aspects of traffic safety administration. Transp. Res. Procedia 2017, 20, 578–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nikolaeva, R. Road safety as a factor in the socio-economic development of the country. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 786, 012070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Dyr, T.; Ziółkowska, K.; Jaździk-Osmólsk, A.; Kozłowska, M. Economic safety aspects of the road traffic in Poland. Cent. Eur. Rev. Econ. Financ. 2017, 21, 7–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Charity, N.; Evdorides, H.A. Systematic Review of the Application of Road Safety Valuation Methods in Assessing the Economic Impact of Road Traffic Injuries. Future Transp. 2023, 3, 1253–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Schoeters, A.; Wijnen, W.; Carnis, L.; Weijermars, W.; Elvik, R.; Daniels, S.; Johannsen, H. Costs related to serious road injuries: A European perspective. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 2020, 12, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Symon, E. Wypadki Drogowe W Polsce W 2015 Roku; Komenda Główna Policji Biura Ruchu Drogowego: Warszawa, Poland, 2016; Available online: https://statystyka.policja.pl/st/ruch-drogowy/76562,Wypadki-drogowe-raporty-roczne.html (accessed on 14 April 2025).
  38. Wegman, F. The future of road safety: A worldwide perspective. IATSS Res. 2016, 40, 66–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wicher, J. Wskaźniki Wypadkowości. In Zeszyty Naukowe Instytutu Pojazdów Politechniki Warszawskiej; SIMR, PW: Warszawa, Poland, 2009; Volume 4. [Google Scholar]
  40. Pułkownik, M. Wskaźniki oceny bezpieczeństwa w ruchu drogowym. Pr. Wydziału Nawig. Akad. Morskiej W Gdyni 2018, 33, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Dyraga, S.; Jaśkiewicz, M.; Milos, P.; Więckowski, D. Analiza wybranych zagadnień prawa o ruchu drogowym w wybranych krajach europejskich. Autobusy 2017, 7–8, 65–70. [Google Scholar]
  42. Główny Urząd Statystyczny, Polska. 2009. Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/metainformacje/slowunik-pojec/pojecia-stosowane-w-statystyce-publicznej/3829,pojecie.html (accessed on 14 April 2025).
  43. Ustawa z Dnia 20 Czerwca 1997 r.—Prawo o Ruchu Drogowym (Dz. U. z 2023 r. poz. 1047, z późn. zm.). Available online: https://stat.gov.pl/metainformacje/slownik-pojec/pojecia-stosowane-w-statystyce-publicznej/1000,pojecie.html (accessed on 14 April 2025).
  44. Zarządzenie nr. 31 Komendanta Głównego Policji Zarządzenie nr 38 Komendanta Głównego Policji z Dnia 15 Grudnia 2021 r. Zmieniające Zarządzenie w Sprawie Metod i Form Prowadzenia Przez Policję Statystyki Zdarzeń Drogowych. 2021. Available online: https://edziennik.policja.gov.pl/legalact/2021/181/ (accessed on 14 April 2025).
  45. Statistisches Bundesamt. Available online: https://www.destatis.de (accessed on 14 April 2025).
  46. Központi Statisztikai Hivatal, Węgry. Available online: https://www.ksh.hu (accessed on 14 April 2025).
  47. Statistik Austria. Available online: https://www.statistik.at (accessed on 14 April 2025).
  48. European Commission, Country Profile Austria. Road Safety Observatory. Brussels, European Commission, Directorate General for Transport. 2023. Available online: https://road-safety.transport.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2024-01/erso-country-overview-2024-austria.pdf (accessed on 14 April 2025).
  49. International Transport Forum. Road Safety Country Profiles Austria 2023; OECD: Paris, France, 2023; Available online: https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/austria-road-safety.pdf (accessed on 14 April 2025).
  50. Carson, J.; Jost, G.; Meinero, M. Ranking EU Progress on Road Safety. 17th Road Safety Performance Index Report June 2023. European Transport Safety. 2023. Available online: https://etsc.eu/wp-content/uploads/ETSC-17th-PIN-Annual-Report-DIGITAL-1.pdf (accessed on 14 April 2025).
  51. Weijermars, W.; Bos, N.; Schoeters, A.; Meunier, J.-C.; Nuyttens, N.; Dupont, E.; Machata, K.; Bauer, R.; Perez, K.; Martin, J.-L.; et al. Serious road traffic injuries in Europe, lessons from the EU research project SafetyCube. Transp. Res. Rec. 2018, 2672, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. European Transport Safety Council. Ranking EU Progress on Road Safety. 18th Road Safety Performance Index (PIN) Report June 2024. pp. 60–63. Available online: https://etsc.eu/wp-content/uploads/ETSC-18th-PIN-Annual-Report-DIGITAL-V3.pdf (accessed on 14 April 2025).
  53. European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document on the Implementation of Objective 6 of the European Commission’s Policy Orientations on Road Safety 2011–2020: First Milestone Towards and Injury Strategy, SWD (2013) 94 Final Brussels. 2013. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/archives/commission_2010-2014/kallas/headlines/news/2013/03/doc/swd(2013)94.pdf (accessed on 14 April 2025).
  54. Tingvall, C.; Ifver, J.; Krafft, M.; Kullgren, A.; Lie, A.; Rizzi, M.; Sternlund, S.; Stigson, H.; Strandroth, J. The consequences of adopting a MAIS 3 injury target for road safety in the EU: A comparison with targets based on fatalities and long-term consequences. In Proceedings of the International Research Council on the Biomechanics of Injury (IRCOBI), Gothenburg, Sweden, 11–13 September 2013. [Google Scholar]
  55. Nunn, J.; Barnes, J.; Morris, A.; Petherick, E.; Mackenzie, R.; Staton, M. Identifying MAIS 3+ injury severity collisions in UK police collision records. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2018, 19 (Suppl. S2), 142–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Altaf, I.; Kaul, A. Classifying victim degree of injury in road traffic accidents: A novel stacked DCL-X approach. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2024, 83, 66691–66723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Dyr, T.; Jaździk-Osmólska, A.; Kozłowska, M. Ekonomiczne i społeczne aspekty bezpieczeństwa ruchu drogowego w Unii Europejskiej i w Polsce. Wiadomości Ubezpieczeniowe 2017, 2, 71–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Statistics of Road Traffic Accidents (in Europe and North America), United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Vol. LVI, United Nations, Geneva, 2021. Available online: https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-01/2113621_E_pdf_web.pdf (accessed on 14 April 2025).
  59. Symon, E.; Rzepka, P. Wypadki Drogowe w Polsce w 2024 r., Komenda Główna Policji. Biuro Ruchu Drogowego, Warszawa, 2025. Available online: https://statystyka.policja.pl/st/ruch-drogowy/76562,wypadki-drogowe-raporty-roczne.html (accessed on 14 April 2025).
  60. Rada Ministrów, Strategia Zrównoważonego Rozwoju Transportu do 2030 roku. Monitor Polski, 2019. poz. 1054. Available online: https://www.gov.pl/web/infrastruktura/projekt-strategii-zrownowazonego-rozwoju-transportu-do-2030-roku2 (accessed on 14 April 2025).
  61. Strategia rozwoju transportu do 2020 roku (Z perspektywą do 2030 roku), Ministerstwo Transportu, Budownictwa i Gospodarki Morskiej, Warszawa, (marzec) 2012. Available online: https://sip.lex.pl/akty-prawne/mp-monitor-polski/strategia-rozwoju-transportu-do-2020-r-z-perspektywa-do-2030-r-17953349 (accessed on 14 April 2025).
  62. Szczęsny, P.; Rymarz, J. Bezpieczeństwo ruchu drogowego Polski, Niemiec i Czech. Autobusy 2010, 6, 7. [Google Scholar]
  63. Olszewski, P.; Osińska, B.; Szagała, P.; Skoczyński, P.; Zielińska, A. Problems with assessing safety of vulnerable road users based on traffic accident data. Arch. Civ. Eng. 2016, LXII, 149–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Mikusova, M.; Kyamakya, K.; Gnap, J. Sustainable development through strategic road safety management: A regional approach. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2024, 262, 379–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 06754 g001
Figure 1. Basic information about the study purpose, methods, results, and conclusions.
Figure 1. Basic information about the study purpose, methods, results, and conclusions.
Sustainability 17 06754 g001
Sustainability 17 06754 g002
Figure 2. Number of road accident casualties in selected European countries from 1970 to 2023. Source: own study, based on Eurostat and OECD data.
Figure 2. Number of road accident casualties in selected European countries from 1970 to 2023. Source: own study, based on Eurostat and OECD data.
Sustainability 17 06754 g002
Sustainability 17 06754 g003
Figure 3. The indicator of the number of accidents per 100,000 inhabitants and fatalities per 1 million inhabitants in the analyzed European countries in 2023. Source: own study, based on Eurostat and OECD data. Numbers in brackets indicate the country’s place in the road safety ranking, according to a given indicator.
Figure 3. The indicator of the number of accidents per 100,000 inhabitants and fatalities per 1 million inhabitants in the analyzed European countries in 2023. Source: own study, based on Eurostat and OECD data. Numbers in brackets indicate the country’s place in the road safety ranking, according to a given indicator.
Sustainability 17 06754 g003
Sustainability 17 06754 g004
Figure 4. Correlation of the number of fatalities and the number of accidents for data from 2023. Source: own study, based on Eurostat and OECD data.
Figure 4. Correlation of the number of fatalities and the number of accidents for data from 2023. Source: own study, based on Eurostat and OECD data.
Sustainability 17 06754 g004
Sustainability 17 06754 g005
Figure 5. The indicator of fatalities per 1 million inhabitants in the analyzed European countries from 1999 to 2023. Source: own study, based on Eurostat and OECD data.
Figure 5. The indicator of fatalities per 1 million inhabitants in the analyzed European countries from 1999 to 2023. Source: own study, based on Eurostat and OECD data.
Sustainability 17 06754 g005
Table 1. Characteristics of the distribution of road safety indicators in the analyzed European countries in 2023.
Table 1. Characteristics of the distribution of road safety indicators in the analyzed European countries in 2023.
Indicators (2023)MeanMedianStd. Dev.MinMaxCV
fatalities per 1 million inhabitants (3)44.442.717.020.081.438.2%
accidents per 100,000 inhabitants (1)174.1152.099.841.1393.357.3%
the injured per 100,000 inhabitants (2)208.8192.8130.841.5489.762.7%
Source: own study, based on Eurostat and OECD data.
Table 2. Correlations of accident, injury, and fatality indicators in the analyzed countries for the selected years.
Table 2. Correlations of accident, injury, and fatality indicators in the analyzed countries for the selected years.
YearFatalities Indicator vs. Accident IndicatorFatalities Indicator vs. Injuries IndicatorInjuries Indicator vs. Accident Indicator
1999−0.10 (p = 0.5965)−0.01 (p = 0.9620)0.94 (p < 0.001)
2004−0.01 (p = 0.9429)0.06 (p = 0.7505)0.97 (p < 0.001)
2009−0.08 (p = 0.6848)−0.14 (p = 0.4566)0.99 (p < 0.001)
2014−0.14 (p = 0.4503)−0.21 (p = 0.2581)0.99 (p < 0.001)
20190.00 (p = 0.9890)−0.01 (p = 0.9373)1.00 (p < 0.001)
20230.05 (p = 0.7724)0.13 (p = 0.4964)0.98 (p < 0.001)
p-value—assessment of correlation significance. Source: own study based on Eurostat and OECD data.
Table 3. Detailed summary of the road accident casualty indicator per million inhabitants in the selected years—countries ranked by road safety level in 2023.
Table 3. Detailed summary of the road accident casualty indicator per million inhabitants in the selected years—countries ranked by road safety level in 2023.
CountryRoad Accident Casualty Indicator per Million Inhabitants
199920042009201420192023
Norway68.456.144.228.820.320.0
Iceland76.279.253.212.316.820.6
Sweden65.553.538.728.021.621.8
United Kingdom60.856.337.728.827.125.3
Switzerland81.869.345.329.921.926.8
Denmark96.768.455.032.334.327.3
Malta31.132.551.123.432.529.5
Finland83.571.852.442.038.233.2
Germany94.770.850.641.836.733.7
Ireland110.792.852.641.428.334.9
Cyprus165.5161.889.152.459.436.9
Spain141.6110.858.136.337.437.6
Netherlands75.354.243.733.938.238.4
Slovenia168.8137.284.152.449.038.7
Luxembourg135.7109.997.363.735.839.3
Belgium136.8111.887.866.656.442.7
Estonia168.2124.473.459.339.343.2
Austria135.2107.875.950.547.044.2
Czechia141.4135.686.465.458.046.4
France140.788.466.451.150.648.4
Slovakia124.4113.271.354.549.549.0
Hungary127.4128.181.963.662.149.2
Poland174.1149.6119.984.276.651.5
Italy117.5106.371.356.053.051.5
Lithuania211.5221.2116.290.666.156.0
Portugal193.6122.572.662.966.761.0
Greece196.9152.6131.272.864.261.2
Croatia146.2141.2127.273.074.871.2
Latvia251.7226.7117.4105.968.875.4
Romania110.0113.6136.891.196.081.1
Bulgaria127.2121.8120.792.994.281.4
Malta is a small country; therefore, the number of road accident casualties is characterized by high random variability. Source: own study, based on Eurostat and OECD data.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nycz, M.; Sobolewski, M. The Problem of the Comparability of Road Accident Data from Different European Countries. Sustainability 2025, 17, 6754. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156754

AMA Style

Nycz M, Sobolewski M. The Problem of the Comparability of Road Accident Data from Different European Countries. Sustainability. 2025; 17(15):6754. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156754

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nycz, Mariola, and Marek Sobolewski. 2025. "The Problem of the Comparability of Road Accident Data from Different European Countries" Sustainability 17, no. 15: 6754. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156754

APA Style

Nycz, M., & Sobolewski, M. (2025). The Problem of the Comparability of Road Accident Data from Different European Countries. Sustainability, 17(15), 6754. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17156754

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop