The sample is extrapolated to the population size. This means that the totals or subtotals per mode of transport or province have a certain error margin. We will deal with a number of these aspects in the following paragraphs.
The sample is drawn so that all kinds of groups are proportionately represented.
The response of all these groups was not equal, meaning that the results had to be weighted again.
Reweighting is compensating for the under- and over-representation of certain groups, e.g. degree of urbanisation, age, and car possession by registration year. The journeys are also reweighted by day of the year.
Extrapolation is converting the sample results into population results.
Since 1995, a new weigthing model is used for the NTS weighting and extrapolation, and has been applied to the data from 1985 onwards. The reason for the new model was the fact that the car use trends of the NTS and the CBS Car Panel were getting farther apart from each other.
From 1999 onwards, the telephone accessibility of a household is taken into account. The response chance of a telephone accessible household is about twice as great as with a household not accessible by telephone.
The correction for the trend break also led to a revised reweigthing and extrapolation of the numbers, and has been applied to the data from 1985 onwards.
There is data about households, individuals, and journeys, each with their own extrapolation factor.
In the reweighting and extrapolation process, broader groups were used than those ultimately available in the available data. Take, for example, the case of age groups. The sample number of 18-30 year olds has been reweighted and extrapolated using the population numbers; no account has been made for an over- or under-representation of 18-19 year olds within this group.
In mid 2002, the corrected NTS data for the 1985-1998 period became available.
When the 1999 and 2000 data became available, it became clear that differences had occurred as a result of a number of factors:
The central idea is that the new method produced a better description of reality, and that the old data should be corrected.
The 1985-1998 data were examined at the micro level and adapted according the new coding instructions. The journeys no longer included were those of children playing outdoors and those of lorries. Multiple journeys are recoded to one 'there and one back' journey as done with journeys having the same departure and arrival address. Missing data was calculated using the same methods as the new NTS data processing.
CBS determined the response chance of each person and altered the weighting factors accordingly by using a number of features (Sex * Age group * High/Low educated * Number of main transport modes used + Day of the week). See Swinkels & Konen (CBS, 2002) for a detailed explanation.
The corrected 1985-1998 results are structurally lower than the original ones. The distances travelled decreased by an average of 13%. These differences were, of course, larger and smaller when subdivided by age, transport mode, and sex.
A larger than average decrease in kilometres travelled (i.e. increase in crash rate) exists for:
A smaller than average decrease or even increase in kilometres travelled (i.e. decrease in crash rate) exists for:
The differences between them are, however, small and have practically no effect on the prioritizing. The ranking of the various groups remains practically unchanged. The groups with the highest crash rates are still the mopedists and slopedists, and the elderly.
There are several points to keep in mind when using NTS data.
Special attention should be paid to the definitions used in this survey. Examples are: exceptions, reweighting, extrapolating, 0-11 year olds, and holiday journeys. They often explain differences between publications.
As a result of the small samples, especially up to 1994, the margins of some variables are quite large. This applies to:
The NTS does not contain any information about journeys by road types or urban/rural.
Many mistakes can be made when filling in a journey diary. Journeys are forgotten (too short, unimportant, nobody else may know, before-and-after transport in public transport journeys), the distance travelled is estimated incorrectly, the times of day are rounded off, etc.
The 1999 results of the new NTS showed that the number of respondents who did not make any journeys was larger than expected. These people (known as 'zero travellers') apparently had been difficult to reach, and for many of them, this was probably the reason not to reply to the old NTS.
In the old NTS the respondent's estimated distances were coded without being controlled to see whether these estimates were plausible considering the journey time. SWOV's assessment study in 1978 showed that, depending on the transport mode, respondents overestimate distances. In the case of car journeys the estimations were 8% and those by bicycle even 20% too far. These corrections were used to recaculate distances travelled.
Since 1999, the new NTS chose not to correct the estimates anymore. Instead, the check is made on whether the relation between the recorded distance and journey time is acceptable. A maximum speed per mode of transport is used for this. On this basis also the trend break for distances was corrected in the old NTS.
In addition to this systematic bias, there are also sampling errors because information is only obtained from a fraction of the population. The size of the error is determined by the sum of two types of error: the bias and the variance. The size of the bias can be determined by a non-response study or an improved observation technique. The variance measures the dispersion around an average value, and this can be estimated from the sample data. Real variance calculations are complicated, and in the next paragraph you will find calculations for a relevant table.
Even after the considerable increase in sample size for the last few years, the data can have random fluctuations that really have to be kept in mind when interpreting the results. This effect of course increases as subdivisions lead to smaller cells (sample number).
In the table below, the size and margin class for important road safety research variables are given.
|
Transp.mode Age |
Pedestrian |
Bicycle |
Moped |
Sloped |
Motor/ scooter |
Car (driver) |
Car (passenger) |
Bus/Tram/ Metro/Train |
Others |
Total |
|
0 – 5 |
231 |
480 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
6636 |
182 |
28 |
7560 |
|
6 – 11 |
239 |
817 |
2 |
4 |
8 |
0 |
5249 |
367 |
25 |
6711 |
|
12 – 14 |
82 |
1296 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1832 |
588 |
23 |
3823 |
|
15 – 17 |
94 |
1132 |
10 |
270 |
26 |
0 |
1820 |
1476 |
45 |
4873 |
|
18 – 19 |
73 |
505 |
7 |
91 |
8 |
1000 |
1307 |
2594 |
28 |
5613 |
|
20 – 24 |
162 |
764 |
11 |
59 |
193 |
4706 |
3097 |
4168 |
75 |
13235 |
|
25 – 29 |
219 |
786 |
2 |
59 |
161 |
8765 |
3294 |
2468 |
103 |
15857 |
|
30 – 34 |
249 |
915 |
2 |
52 |
150 |
12501 |
3537 |
1598 |
83 |
19088 |
|
35 – 39 |
259 |
1091 |
33 |
50 |
109 |
12863 |
3179 |
1840 |
99 |
19524 |
|
40 – 44 |
247 |
1120 |
11 |
56 |
202 |
11469 |
2955 |
1357 |
99 |
17517 |
|
45 – 49 |
250 |
1016 |
18 |
33 |
233 |
10669 |
2701 |
1478 |
86 |
16484 |
|
50 – 54 |
236 |
1077 |
12 |
20 |
67 |
9428 |
3042 |
1200 |
106 |
15188 |
|
55 – 59 |
215 |
872 |
16 |
15 |
39 |
7746 |
2934 |
923 |
101 |
12863 |
|
60 – 64 |
212 |
739 |
16 |
10 |
4 |
4654 |
1946 |
748 |
29 |
8358 |
|
65 – 69 |
179 |
525 |
5 |
7 |
11 |
2694 |
1432 |
616 |
37 |
5506 |
|
70 – 74 |
127 |
379 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
1720 |
1189 |
398 |
51 |
3871 |
|
75 – 79 |
91 |
200 |
6 |
6 |
1 |
1052 |
639 |
280 |
7 |
2281 |
|
80 + |
59 |
93 |
7 |
2 |
4 |
478 |
628 |
234 |
6 |
1511 |
|
Total |
3226 |
13807 |
161 |
738 |
1222 |
89745 |
47417 |
22515 |
1029 |
179861 |
|
Table 1. Kilometres NTS 2003 by age group and mode of transport |
||||||||||
|
Margin <10% |
Margin < 20% |
Margin ≥ 20% |
|
|
||||||
The size of the sample margin percentages of each of the above cells is given in the table below.
|
Transp. mode |
Pedestrian |
Bicycle |
Moped |
Sloped |
Motor/ scooter |
Car (driver) |
Car (passenger) |
Bus/Tram/ Metro/Train |
Others |
Total |
|
|||||
|
0 – 5 |
10.6 |
9.8 |
196 |
176 |
|
|
10.1 |
40.5 |
71.7 |
9.03 |
|
|||||
|
6 – 11 |
7.8 |
7.4 |
182 |
93.9 |
150 |
|
10.0 |
35.9 |
81.6 |
8.24 |
|
|||||
|
12 – 14 |
14.8 |
6.6 |
|
179 |
196 |
|
12.8 |
24.2 |
86.9 |
7.89 |
|
|||||
|
15 – 17 |
15.0 |
7.2 |
109 |
18.6 |
75.1 |
|
14.3 |
16.9 |
84.4 |
8.26 |
|
|||||
|
18 – 19 |
12.8 |
11.9 |
93.2 |
30.9 |
126 |
19.3 |
16.4 |
15.9 |
73.8 |
9.94 |
|
|||||
|
20 – 24 |
11.3 |
10.0 |
146 |
37.1 |
145 |
8.7 |
14.2 |
12.4 |
144 |
7.13 |
|
|||||
|
25 – 29 |
11.2 |
9.9 |
165 |
56.2 |
73.2 |
7.5 |
13.4 |
17.4 |
80.1 |
6.32 |
|
|||||
|
30 – 34 |
10.3 |
10.4 |
174 |
40.3 |
42.5 |
6.3 |
11.5 |
21.2 |
81.8 |
5.54 |
|
|||||
|
35 – 39 |
8.2 |
8.1 |
51.1 |
64.7 |
44.4 |
5.8 |
11.9 |
16.2 |
63.9 |
5.06 |
|
|||||
|
40 – 44 |
9.7 |
7.8 |
93.7 |
62.6 |
39.8 |
5.9 |
11.9 |
16.9 |
80.0 |
4.97 |
|
|||||
|
45 – 49 |
8.7 |
7.8 |
68.8 |
54.6 |
55.8 |
5.9 |
12.2 |
17.5 |
47.1 |
5.15 |
|
|||||
|
50 – 54 |
9.0 |
8.5 |
61.8 |
52.6 |
75.8 |
7.3 |
11.9 |
18.6 |
62.8 |
5.79 |
|
|||||
|
55 – 59 |
9.7 |
9.0 |
60.4 |
47.4 |
77.3 |
6.9 |
11.6 |
20.9 |
87.5 |
5.85 |
|
|||||
|
60 – 64 |
10.6 |
10.7 |
132 |
67.7 |
114 |
8.6 |
12.7 |
24.8 |
62.6 |
6.83 |
|
|||||
|
65 – 69 |
10.9 |
11.3 |
69.9 |
98.8 |
147 |
11.0 |
14.1 |
30.6 |
61.1 |
8.33 |
|
|||||
|
70 – 74 |
10.9 |
13.8 |
196 |
118 |
78.5 |
14.0 |
16.7 |
33.3 |
88.2 |
9.77 |
|
|||||
|
75 – 79 |
13.1 |
15.3 |
114 |
94.8 |
95.8 |
16.9 |
18.4 |
38.9 |
45.0 |
11.49 |
|
|||||
|
80 + |
16.8 |
21.7 |
120 |
196 |
52.0 |
23.8 |
26.8 |
61.3 |
40.0 |
17.82 |
|
|||||
|
Total |
2.80 |
2.48 |
25.92 |
12.53 |
29.17 |
2.03 |
3.70 |
5.24 |
23.25 |
1.790 |
|
|||||
|
Table 2. Relative confidence margins (95%) for the NTS sample by age group and transport mode. |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Margin10% |
Margin 20% |
Margin ≥ 20% |
|
|
||||||||||||
The 95% confidence limits mean that the real mobility/exposure lies between the value of Table 1 ± the margin in Table 2. With the real mobility/exposure we mean here the value that would have been obtained if everybody had been surveying during the whole year. Bias errors (overestimating distances, omitting journeys, non-response) would still exist.
For example: the 25-29 year old motorists annually travel 8,765 million kilometres ± 7.5%; i.e. between 8,111 and 9,419 million kilometres.
The margins of the numbers in the column and row totals are considerably smaller. This is logical because the number of individuals/households to calculate this is much larger.
When the mobility/exposure is used to estimate the crash rate, we have to use the relative margins of both the number of casualties (≈1.94/√N) and kilometres (table 2) to compare subgroups.

Deaths per billion kilometres travelled by transport mode, summed for all ages, including margin of numbers of deaths and the NTS sample margin.
In the figure above, the death rates for various transport modes are given. The death rate of slopedists is lower than that of mopedists, but if the margins are included in the comparison, there is probably the other way round (i.e. mopedists have a larger crash rate than slopedists). This calculation does not include the bias errors. The margin shown must therefore be regarded as a lower limit; in reality the margins are even larger. This figure also illustrates that a subdivision of the death rate by age group for motorized two-wheelers is a risky business.
The sample size, i.e. the number of journeys on which the mobility/exposure number is based, is a measure for the margin to be applied to the calculated data.
|
Pedestrian |
Bicycle |
Moped |
Sloped |
Motor/ scooter |
Car (driver) |
Car (passenger) |
Bus/Tram/ Metro/Train |
Others |
Total |
|
|
0 - 5 |
3658 |
3208 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
7109 |
131 |
117 |
14228 |
|
6 - 11 |
5926 |
6682 |
3 |
18 |
4 |
0 |
6348 |
261 |
36 |
19278 |
|
12 - 14 |
1536 |
5114 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1701 |
374 |
34 |
8763 |
|
15 - 17 |
1580 |
4475 |
13 |
540 |
34 |
0 |
1485 |
955 |
28 |
9110 |
|
18 - 19 |
1234 |
1734 |
21 |
176 |
12 |
806 |
869 |
1139 |
18 |
6009 |
|
20 - 24 |
2244 |
2581 |
14 |
107 |
49 |
3996 |
1625 |
1841 |
19 |
12476 |
|
25 - 29 |
2663 |
2651 |
4 |
77 |
60 |
6416 |
1876 |
910 |
45 |
14702 |
|
30 - 34 |
3778 |
3895 |
4 |
87 |
91 |
9808 |
2160 |
781 |
52 |
20656 |
|
35 - 39 |
4594 |
5520 |
48 |
72 |
70 |
11547 |
2244 |
863 |
104 |
25062 |
|
40 - 44 |
4008 |
5881 |
31 |
84 |
107 |
11188 |
2127 |
821 |
62 |
24309 |
|
45 - 49 |
3855 |
4813 |
55 |
86 |
82 |
9929 |
2177 |
854 |
132 |
21983 |
|
50 - 54 |
3590 |
4896 |
31 |
54 |
45 |
8632 |
2183 |
722 |
59 |
20212 |
|
55 - 59 |
3363 |
4028 |
43 |
67 |
40 |
7366 |
2214 |
627 |
122 |
17870 |
|
60 - 64 |
2912 |
3341 |
24 |
36 |
21 |
4792 |
1820 |
439 |
77 |
13462 |
|
65 - 69 |
2625 |
2575 |
32 |
21 |
20 |
3182 |
1362 |
393 |
87 |
10297 |
|
70 - 74 |
2091 |
1889 |
2 |
16 |
21 |
2244 |
1124 |
315 |
108 |
7810 |
|
75 - 79 |
1530 |
1022 |
20 |
24 |
16 |
1316 |
785 |
253 |
81 |
5047 |
|
80 + |
1107 |
519 |
12 |
1 |
69 |
700 |
611 |
152 |
118 |
3289 |
|
Total |
52294 |
64824 |
360 |
1471 |
742 |
81922 |
39820 |
11831 |
1299 |
254563 |
|
Table 3. Sample size (number of journeys) of NTS 2003 by age group and transport mode. |
||||||||||
|
Margin <10% |
Margin < 20% |
Margin ≥ 20% |
|
|
||||||
We can thus see that for a margin smaller than 20%, a sample of approx. 1000 journeys is necessary, and for a margin smaller than 10% approx. 5000 journeys.
A margin smaller than 5% does not occur in any of the cells; this only occurs for the summing of age or transport mode. In some cases it helps to totalize a number of years.
In the Powerplay web application, the number of journeys can be made visible by, under 'Measure', selecting not the kilometres travelled, but the number of journeys (sample size, see also Table 3). The number of journeys used to calculate the mobility gives a rough indication of the expected margin.