Europe and its road safety vision- how far to zero?

1
Europe and its road safety vision-how far to
zero?

• Prof. Claes Tingvall, Director of Traffic Safety
  at the Swedish Road Administration and Chairman
  of EuroNCAP
• and Monash University Accident Research Centre

2

• Background
• Vision Zero
• Some examples
• Barriers for implementation
• The way ahead

3
The current road transport system

• Major mismatch between components of the system
• Trade-off between health and benefits allowed
• Unclear responsibilities
• Unclear safety philosphy
• Weak driving forces for change

4
Vision Zero a Safe Traffic Concept

• Goal
• The long term goal is that no-one shall be killed
  or seriously injured within the Swedish road
  transport system.

• History
• On October 9, 1997 the Road Traffic Safety Bill
  founded on "Vision Zero" was passed by a large
  majority in the Swedish Parliament. This
  represents an entirely new way of thinking with
  respect to road traffic safety.

5
Vision Zero ? Zero Fatalities(At least not
only)Vision Zero 5 dimensions(or more?)

• vision for many stakeholders
• ethical platform
• shared responsibility
• safety philosophy
• driving forces for change

6
Vision for many stakeholders

• Traffic safety is a shared responsibility for
  many stakeholders
• A joint vision is a powerful tool to focus the
  work
• A vision sets out a future desired situation -
  not a step by step action with no definition of
  its end point

7
Ethical platform

• Human life and health is paramount
• Life and health can not, in the long run, be
  traded against other benefits
• Mobility is a function of the safety level

8
Shared responsibility

• Historically main responsibility on the road user
• In Vision Zero the responsibility is shared
  between road users and system designers

9
Shared responsibility
System designers are responsible for the design,
operation and the use of the road transport
system and are thereby responsible for the level
of safety within the entire system. Road users
are responsible for following the rules for using
the road transport system set by the system
designers. If the users fail to comply with
these rules due to a lack of knowledge,
acceptance or ability, the system designers are
required to take the necessary further steps to
counteract people being killed or injured.
10
System designers everyone that influences the
design, function and use of the road transport
system
politicians community planners road managers
municipal authorities vehicle manufacturers trans
port companies and everyone who professionally
uses roads and streets police rescue forces and
more
11
Safety Philosophy
Any well functioning man-machine system brings
the failing human into the loop. Blaming the
victim approach is a catastrophe to prevention.
12
Rule of Science
We shall only use the best possible methods and
base our action on the failing human
13
Rule of Science - cont.
The biomechanical tolerance of the human is the
limiting factor for the road transport system
14
(No Transcript)
15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
Driving Forces
The citizens legitimate demand for life and
health is the main driving force for change
18
In order to get the citizens into the loop, all
qualities of products and services should be
openly declared
examples
NCAP for vehicles EuroRAP for infrastructure/ spee
d limit ? for transport services ? for heavy
goods transport etc.
19
Is Vision Zero expensive?

• yes, to modify or compensate earlier mistakes is
  expensive
• no, to do things right from the beginning is not
  expensive

20
Typical costs - if made right from the beginning
21
So what has happened?
22
CENTRE GUARD RAILS
On existing 13m wide roads
23
(No Transcript)
24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)
27
SAFE ROAD AREAS
Design for people leaving the road
28
ROUNDABOUTS
Intersection with problemsFocus on crashes
results in signalsFocus on injuries results in
roundabouts
29
RIGHT SPEED
Vehicles, roads and speeds must match
30
COLLISION FOR SAFETY Euro NCAP
Get everyone up to best practice by telling the
public about safety differences
31
TRAVEL POLICY IN COMPANIES
Everyone company has a responsibility to assure
safety
32
SAFE TRANSPORTS
Everyone buying or selling transports has a
responsibility to assure safety
33
And more

• 30 km/h in built up areas (where unprotected and
  cars meet)
• In depth studies of fatal crashes
• OLA (in depth analysis together with system
  designers aiming at Letters of Intents
• National Collective Action
• Euro RAP and other assessment programs
• Other countries follow and so does the European
  commission, WHO and more

34
System designers responsibilityAn example What

• The Swedish Taxi Association
• Highest seat belt use
• Keep speed limits
• No driving under influence

35
System designers responsibilityAn example How

• The Swedish Taxi Association is prepared to
• Retrofit of seat belt reminders
• Average speed measurement using cameras
• Retrofit of alcohol starter inter-lock

36
Barriers for implementation

• The belief that one agency can plan and implement
  a whole traffic safety programme
• Myths rather than scientific knowledge are
  driving the implementation of safety in the
  society
• Safety is considered to be a restriction of
  mobility rather than a quality of mobility
• Hidden agendas are counterproductive

37
The way ahead

• Errors are absorbed violations are not accepted
  at all
• The provider of the infrastructure must guarantee
  the safety level of the infrastructure
• Automotive industry must compete more about
  delivering safety to the citizen, and all
  stakeholders must commit to only buy safe cars

38
The way ahead cont.

• Transport industry takes a lead in using the road
  transport system in a sensible and responsible
  way, buy the safest products and support the
  development of a sustainable road transport
  system, (all other stakeholders do the same)
• All stakeholders are accountable to the citizen

39
(No Transcript)