Expected Outcome:

Project results are expected to contribute to all the following expected outcomes:

• Improved (compared to the current figures for the locations selected for the pilot testing) road safety (actual and perceived) for pedestrians, cyclists, e-cyclists and users of other micro-mobility devices, considering that the safety of these users is not only at risk from motorised vehicles, but also from their interaction with road users with higher masses or operating speeds (e.g. between e-bikes and pedestrians);
• An in-depth analysis and assessment of the safety associated with the emergence of electrically assisted small vehicles such e-bikes, e-cargo bikes, e-scooters, to be referred to as micromobility modes, that may be shared or own, and are used for personal mobility (e.g. commuting) and the transportation of goods (e.g. parcel delivery);
• Increased (compared to the current figures for the locations selected for the pilot testing) use of active and micromobility modes in all age and socioeconomic groups as a result of improved safety;
• Standardisation guidelines for the authorities (cities authorities, police, and hospitals) on how to report crashes that involve micromobility modes with the objective to avoid under- and/or misreporting;
• Guidelines for the city authorities on how to incorporate micromobility modes in their Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMPs) and account for the safety and convenience of all road users;
• Development of mitigating solutions for the adverse impact on the safety of cyclists, pedestrians, and other users of the changing car fleet towards bigger and heavier vehicles;
• In depth analysis of the impact of road infrastructure (e.g. design, markings, degradation status, quality, network connectivity) on the safety and comfort of cyclists, pedestrians, and micromobility users and development of mitigation solutions;
• Assessment methodologies to evaluate the safety potential and the effectiveness of advanced safety measures.

Scope:

The share of trips made by active modes is increasing, which is in line with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. This increase is linked to cities actively placing more focus on the mobility and safety needs of pedestrians, cyclists, e-cyclists and users of other micro-mobility device, which materialises in new regulations, and in new or improved infrastructure. However, pedestrians and cyclists remain heavily affected by crashes. Concurrently, the use of electrically assisted devices (such as e-bikes, e-scooters, e-cargo bikes, mobility systems used by people with disabilities, etc.) – to be referred to as micromobility modes – is increasing exponentially because these modes represent an efficient means of personal mobility, as well as a new and effective mode for the last-mile delivery of goods within the city area. Micromobility modes, shared and owned, have been adopted by commuters, tourists, the elderly, food and goods delivery companies, and come in varying sizes and operating speeds. When their use emerged, micromobility modes were associated with high hospitalisation rates, mainly for the micromobility users themselves, but also pedestrians and cyclists. While efforts have been made to regularise and standardise these vehicles, especially in the case of shared e-scooters, there is still a significant knowledge gap related to the operational safety of these vehicles in cities.

Proposals submitted under this topic should address all of the following aspects:

• Collect and use exposure data when analysing the safety of pedestrians, cyclists, and micromobility users, and identify crash contributing factors and their interactions;
• Provide an extensive analysis of the safety needs, as well as tailored safety measures for cyclists and each type of micromobility mode (e.g. shared e-scooters versus owned e-bikes), while taking into account the trip purpose (e.g. recreational ride versus delivery of goods), and the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the users;
• Assess the actual and perceived safety risk of pedestrians and cyclists due to the emergence of micromobility modes that operate at higher speeds and that have increased in size and weight;
• Quantify the impact of the geometric design, quality, and continuity of the cycling infrastructure on the safety of cyclists, pedestrians and micromobility users, considering their increasing demand, operating speeds, and size of vehicles;
• Assess the potential effectiveness of vehicle-to-everything (V2X) technologies in decreasing conflicts and near misses between pedestrians, cyclists and micromobility vehicles, and users and motorised vehicles;
• Identify best practices in the design of bicycles and micromobility vehicles in terms of stability and the avoidance of single crashes, contributing to the underlying development of a draft European regulatory framework on the type-approval of micromobility vehicles or self-certification based on harmonised standards;
• Identify, define and pilot test the following in at least two clearly identified real-life urban environments:
  • new geometric designs of infrastructure to ensure safe, seamless, and comfortable mobility for pedestrians, cyclists and users of micromobility modes while accounting for the increasing demand, higher operating speeds and weight and size of e-bikes, e-scooters and all types of micromobility devices;
  • smart technologies (V2X) to assess their effectiveness in preventing and decreasing conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists, micromobility modes users and motorised traffic;
  • road safety requisites, requirements, rules and/or regulations that could be put in place by local authorities in order to increase the take-up and the safety of active and micromobility modes in all age and socioeconomic groups, by 20% compared to the baseline at the start of the project;
  • development of a comprehensive, real-time information platform for cyclists that includes data on route accessibility, signage, and infrastructure conditions.

Special focus should be paid to supporting the safety of user groups with particular vulnerability including people with disabilities (physical, mental, cognitive, developmental, intellectual, sensory, etc).

Proposals are invited to explain how the work supports local/regional/national authorities’ efforts to deliver on the objectives of the Vision Zero Strategy, the Strategic Action Plan on Road Safety and the EU Road Safety Policy Framework 2021-2030 as well as on the integration of road safety policies and programmes in Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning.

Proposals should plan for an active collaboration with the well-recognised initiatives in the field of road safety and urban mobility such as the European Road Safety Observatory and the CIVITAS initiative. In addition, proposals should demonstrate that the proposed approaches build upon the results from previous research actions[1] and liaise and collaborate with the projects that will be selected under topic “HORIZON-MISS-2025-06-CIT-CANCER-01: Walking and cycling: increasing their modal share to reap health benefits and emission reductions and integrating active mobility and micro-mobility devices, with smart technologies and infrastructure”.

This topic requires the effective contribution of social sciences and humanities (SSH) disciplines and the involvement of SSH experts and institutions, as well as the inclusion of relevant SSH expertise, to produce meaningful and significant effects enhancing the societal impact of the related research activities, with a focus on human-technology interaction, responsiveness of safety solutions and how this varies across different population groups, and behavioural norms.

AI Based Application Success Predictor

1️⃣ Strong, Mission-Aligned Impact (Most Important Across EC Calls)

The EC is impact-driven: proposals must show how the project will:

Solve a major European or global societal challenge

Deliver measurable, lasting benefits for EU citizens

Produce outputs that can be used by policymakers, industry, or society

Align with Horizon Europe missions, priorities, and strategic agendas

Predictor: Clear, quantifiable, EU-level impact → strongest scoring factor.

2️⃣ Clear, Ambitious, but Achievable Objectives

Successful proposals show:

2–4 well-defined objectives linked to the Work Programme call text

Clearly articulated research questions or innovation goals

Logical, realistic expected outcomes and deliverables

Feasible scientific and technical approaches

Predictor: Balanced ambition + feasibility.

3️⃣ Excellent, Cutting-Edge Science or Innovation

For RIA/IA/CSA or ERC-level grants, reviewers expect:

High novelty and innovation

Strong grounding in current state-of-the-art

Clear advancement beyond existing approaches

Solid theoretical or experimental foundations

Robust methodological design

Predictor: Scientific excellence is essential for competitive scoring.

4️⃣ Strong Consortium with Complementary Expertise

EC proposals are consortium-driven (except ERC/EIC Accelerator).

High-scoring consortia:

Cover all needed competencies (science, industry, policy, ethics, dissemination)

Include SMEs, industry partners, NGOs, and public bodies when relevant

Are geographically diverse across EU Member States and Associated Countries

Demonstrate strong leadership and communication structures

Predictor: Well-constructed consortium with clear roles.

5️⃣ Clear Pathway From Outputs → Outcomes → Impact

Evaluators look for a credible trajectory showing:

How research leads to specific outputs (data, tools, prototypes)

How outputs lead to uptake or use

How use produces societal, economic, scientific, or policy impact

Strong Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and impact metrics

Predictor: Clearly mapped impact pathway.

6️⃣ Strong Implementation Plan (Work Packages, Deliverables, Gantt Chart)

Winning proposals have:

Well-designed Work Packages (WPs) with clear scope and responsibilities

Interdependencies identified and risk-mitigation strategies

Detailed milestones and deliverables

Feasible budget aligned with tasks

Strong project management plan

Predictor: High implementation quality boosts the “Excellence” and “Implementation” scores.

7️⃣ Policy Relevance and Contribution to EU Strategies

Especially critical for health, climate, digital, and social calls.

Proposals score higher when they link to:

EU Cancer Mission

EU Green Deal

Digital Europe strategy

EU Biodiversity Strategy

EU Health Union & One Health

Open Science & FAIR data mandates

Predictor: Clear alignment with EU policies.

8️⃣ Strong Stakeholder & Citizen Engagement (Especially in Social & Health Missions)

EC values inclusivity:

Patient groups

Civil society organizations

Public sector bodies

Regulatory agencies

Citizen science components

Stakeholder letters of intent or commitment strengthen credibility.

Predictor: Engagement adds impact and relevance.

9️⃣ Robust Data Management, Open Science, and Ethics

Mandatory components include:

FAIR Data Management Plan

Open access publications

Ethics self-assessment

GDPR compliance

Data security, governance, and ethical approvals

Animal-use reduction and justification (if applicable)

Predictor: Clear compliance with ethical and data obligations.

10️⃣ Well-Justified Budget and Resource Allocation

Budget must be:

Proportional to tasks

Transparent and reasonable

Efficiently distributed among partners

Free from padding or unjustified costs

Predictor: Realistic budgets improve Implementation scores.

🚫 COMMON PITFALLS THAT LEAD TO EC GRANT REJECTION