The Ultimate Safe System: Redefining the Safe System Approach for Road Safety

Abstract

The Safe System approach to road safety has been adopted in many countries, but it has been adopted pervasively to a substantially constrained extent. This paper argues that effective adoption is hampered by two weaknesses in strategies for the implementation of Safe System: (1) interpretations of the shared responsibility principle and (2) Safe System adoption presented as simply requiring the use of multiple pillars of action. The typical description of shared responsibility includes responsibility by road users to obey the rules. This absolves accountability for road safety by the system owners and operators, facilitating victim blaming and reliance on road users who are acknowledged to be fallible. Thus, the system cannot be fully safe, and the vision of zero road trauma cannot be achieved. The extent to which road users are responsible for road safety via their actions is precisely the extent to which those responsible for the system have failed to deliver a safe road system. The assessment of road safety plans as Safe System because it includes multiple pillars of action fails to distinguish a system approach from a Safe System approach. Through these inclusions and interpretations, road safety advocates inadvertently obviate the responsibility of system owners and operators to provide a safe road system and prevent the achievement of zero road trauma, which nonetheless remains the vision described in Safe System strategies and plans. The Ultimate Safe System approach is proposed with a definition that genuinely drives the delivery of a truly Safe System and thus zero road trauma. Practical implications are considered.

Miscommunications Based on Different Meanings of “Safe” and Their Implications for the Meaning of Safe System

“…In order to achieve zero deaths and serious injuries, the definition of "safe" in Safe System must be rigorously the absolute definition. Thus, a Safe System is a road system "in which road users cannot be killed or seriously injured regardless of their behaviour or the behaviour of other road users" (Job et al, 2022). This definition accurately encapsulates the absolute meaning of "safe" in terms of "protected/free from hurt, injury, danger, harm, damage or risk."…”

“…In 1997, the Riksdag, the Swedish Parliament, adopted Vision Zero as a new goal and strategy for road safety in Sweden (Swedish Government, 1997). Vision Zero as an overall public road safety policy differs from a more traditional road safety in how it defines a road safety problem and its causes, the long-term goal of road safety, how responsibility is shared between individuals and system providers (Job et al, 2022) and what the most appropriate strategies are to create a safe system (Belin et al, 2012). In the more than 20 years since the Vision Zero policy was adopted, it has spread internationally as a model of a public road safety policy (ITF/ OECD, 2008OECD, , 2016World Health Organization, 2017;World Bank, 2013Job, 2017).…”

“…For example, in many high-income countries (HICs), companies are required to ensure the safety of their employees at work in offices as well as high-risk situations such as construction. While many countries are apparently adopting "Safe System" for road safety, the way it is commonly described, defined, and promoted in road safety hinders delivery of the zero deaths and serious injuries target which forms part of the Safe System Approach (Job et al, 2022;Belin, 2016).…”

Utilising Human Crash Tolerance to Design an Interim and Ultimate Safe System for Road Safety

“…It is commendable that jurisdictions are aiming for zero; however, current strategy development processes appear to be insufficient to support this ambition. Road safety strategies are often planned in 3-5 or 10 year cycles [2] attached to a set of interim casualty reductions targets without a concurrent long term plan on how to build a safe road system that can help ultimately achieve zero road trauma. While the ultimate goal of any road safety strategy is to reduce road trauma, in determining the ability of a road safety strategy in setting out a long-term pathway to zero, casualty reduction targets alone should not be the only measure of success.…”

Determinants and effects of Poland’s road accidents in the context of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development – poviat level analysis for the years 2010-2019

“…The costs of road deaths to most national economies represent about 3% of their GDP (WHO, 2021). Road accidents are a consequence of a number of factors related to the user-vehicle-road system (Job et al, 2022)but it has been adopted pervasively to a substantially constrained extent. This paper argues that effec-ysed for how their road safety indicators changed between 2010 and 2019.…”