Dear Saif Shabou, Isabelle Ruin and colleagues,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to NHESS. I received two reports from reviewers and your interactive response on their comments. Both reviewers highlighted that the manuscript is sound, describing an interesting and new approach regarding the exposure to flooding of road users, thus the manuscript is in the scope of NHESS.

The comments of the reviewers include mainly suggestions to small changes considering additional information on same technical modelling aspects to reach a higher readability, a few more aspects in the discussion and a few language editing. I therefore ask you to consider all the comments of the reviewers and include this in the revision of your manuscript.
Regarding the comments of the reviewers I decided a minor revision. The editor will review the revised version of the manuscript.

I realized that you already uploaded in the interactive discussion the revised version of the manuscript. Please be aware that the revision of the manuscript is only after this decision needed (see information below 6) Final response and peer-review completion).
Furthermore, the next steps are to prepare one response file (as .pdf) including (1) comments from referees/public, (2) author's response to each comment one by one, and (3) author's changes in manuscript. Regarding author's changes, a marked-up manuscript version (track changes in Word, latexdiff in LaTeX) converted into a *.pdf including the author's response must be submitted. Additionally, you have to upload the new version of the manuscript (see also please consider therefore the guidelines of the NHESS procedure again (http://www.natural-hazards-and-earth-system-sciences.net/peer_review/interactive_review_process.html#interactivepublicdiscussion).

If you have any question regarding the procedure or interpretation of the comments, please do not hesitate to contact me for clarification.

Regards, Margreth Keiler
[NHESS Editor]
[Associate Professor of Geomorphology, Natural Hazards and Risk Research, University of Bern]

6) Final response and peer-review completion
After the open discussion, the authors are expected to publish a response to all comments within four weeks, in case they have not done so during the open discussion. Based on the responses, the editor either invites the authors to submit a revised manuscript or directly rejects the manuscript. If necessary he or she may also consult referees in the same way as during the completion of a traditional peer-review process.

Dear Saif Shabou, Isabelle Ruin and colleagues,
Thank you for submitting the revision of your manuscript in this short time period. The response file was very clear and you address all the comments and suggestions of the reviewers. I read carefully your revised manuscript and have only a few technical remarks/request before your manuscript could enter the publication phase. These are as followed:
• Please consider the NHESS guideline regarding footnotes: “These should be avoided, as they tend to disrupt the flow of the text. If absolutely necessary, they should be numbered consecutively. Footnotes to tables should be marked by lowercase letters.”
• In the provided pdf following figures are hardly to read: Fig. 7 and also Fig. 12/13. Please check this in the proof of the paper. Perhaps you see also a potential to reduce the number of figures.
If you have any question regarding the procedure or interpretation of the comments, please do not hesitate to contact me for clarification.

Regards, Margreth Keiler
[NHESS Editor]
[Associate Professor of Geomorphology, Natural Hazards and Risk Research, University of Bern]