The advanced vision
in brief
Advancing
Sustainable Safety
National Road Safety Exploration
for 2005-2020
SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research
During the presentation in Leiden, various SWOV
speakers introduced the guests to the advanced
Sustainable Safety vision. Fred Wegman, SWOV's
managing director, emphasized that the elaboration
of complex questions in a complex context
requires a great deal from those involved.
Political will provides indispensable encouragement
in this. Everyone involved must continue on
the road already started and not avoid new possibilities
and challenges.
In her reply, the Minister of Transport said she
was pleased with the advanced Sustainable
Safety vision. She is greatly concerned about
road safety; new measures and initiatives are
still essential. We must not forget that the 881
road deaths in the Netherlands in 2004 are the
equivalent of 18 busloads of children, parents,
partners, relatives and friends. Everybody's
efforts and creativity are welcome in order to
further reduce this number. She felt that she had
a great deal of support in political debates from
the strong argument that there is no single more
socially beneficial measure than a road safety
measure.
Advancing Sustainable Safety lays the foundation
for further improving road safety and proposes
various possibilities to do so. Implementation
requires effort, initiative and cooperation.
Launch of ‘Advancing Sustainable Safety’
2 0 S W O V • A D V A N C I N G S U S T A I N A B L E S A F E T Y I N B R I E F
by mid-2006:
www.sustainablesafety.nl
The Dutch Minister of Transport Karla Peijs (third from the left) and representatives
from the police, provinces, municipalities and interest groups are presented with
the first copy of the Dutch edition of Advancing Sustainable Safety, by Fred
Wegman, managing director of SWOV (on the left).
Sustainable Safety is a successful vision for safer road traffic. However, in spite of all its success,
it was beginning to show signs of wear and tear. The latest insights have since been processed
and incorporated in the updated Advancing Sustainable Safety vision. On 2 November 2005,
the Dutch Minister of Transport and representatives from the police, provinces, municipalities
and interest groups were presented with the first copy of the Dutch version of the book. An
English version of this book will be published mid-2006 and will also be called Advancing
Sustainable Safety.
2603024_SWOV_Sustainable Safety.qxd 29-03-2006 11:26 Pagina 20
Fred Wegman (Managing Director SWOV)
Each year there are about 1,000 road deaths in the Netherlands and many thousands of road
users are injured. Fortunately, these numbers are slowly but surely declining. Compared with
many other countries, Dutch traffic is among the safest in the world. However, good as it
may be, there are still too many traffic casualties every year. Every year, a disaster occurs
that society does not experience as such and therefore does not deal with as such. The
average Dutchman does not really seem to care about all these anonymous deaths: road
crashes are simply part of life. The chance of being killed in a road crash seems too abstract
to worry about. However, it's another story if one of the deaths involves a neighbour, a
colleague at work, a good friend or a relative. Only then do we wonder how this could
happen, and ask if and how it might have been prevented. But what are the answers?
Anyone can have an accident. Everybody makes an error now and again; there are more
than enough examples. People make errors and the risk of fatal errors increases when
people consciously break traffic laws and regulations. This explains the need for safeguards
against these errors. This is the Sustainable Safety approach in a nutshell.
Advancing Sustainable Safety; National Road Safety Exploration for 2005-2020 is an
update of the original Sustainable Safety vision that was published in Dutch in 1992.
Advancing Sustainable Safety critically examines the Sustainable Safety vision.
Amendments have been made where necessary, because we have learned from our initial
steps on the way towards sustainably safe road traffic. Advancing insights and new developments
also necessitated an update of the Sustainable Safety concept. The book, which will
be published by mid-2006, is not a policy document. However, we want the advanced vision
to inspire the policy agenda of all tiers of government, the private sector, social organizations,
etc. Advancing Sustainable Safety contains many recommendations that provide
points of departure.
In this much smaller edition of the book, we offer you a cross section of all the chapters.
Naturally this limitation required choices to be made. As a result we have only touched on
some aspects and omitted others. We hope that this summary provides sufficient food for
thought to interest you in the full edition. By mid-2006, the full text of Advancing Sustainable
Safety will also be available at www.sustainablesafety.nl.
As in the full edition of the book, this abbreviated version first deals with the backgrounds
and analyses of the Sustainable Safety vision successively. Next we discuss various types of
measures, such as those dealing with: infrastructure, vehicles, Intelligent Transport Systems,
laws and their enforcement, and education. We then address specific problems or target
groups: speed, drink-and-drug driving, young and novice drivers, cyclists and pedestrians,
motorized two-wheelers and heavy goods vehicles. Both the book and this short edition
conclude with the preconditions for a successful implementation of Sustainable Safety. The
conditions we discuss involve the organization of policy implementation, quality assurance,
financing measures and various subjects together called 'accompanying policy'.
With Advancing Sustainable Safety SWOV wants to give Sustainable Safety a fresh impulse.
I hope that the advanced vision will inspire you to further promote road safety during the
coming years.
FOREWORD
2 S W O V • A D V A N C I N G S U S T A I N A B L E S A F E T Y I N B R I E F
Colophon
SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research
Leidschendam, 2006
www.swov.nl
Contents
ANALYSES
The principles of Sustainable Safety
3
Road safety developments
4
Sustainable Safety to date:
effects and lessons
5
DETAILING THE VISION
Infrastructure
6
Vehicles
7
Intelligent Transport Systems
8
Education
9
Laws and their enforcement
9
SPECIAL ISSUES
Speed management
10
Drink-and-drug driving
11
Young and novice drivers
12
Cyclists and pedestrians
13
Motorized two-wheelers
14
Heavy goods vehicles
15
IMPLEMENTATION
Organization of policy
implementation
16
Quality assurance
17
Financing
18
Accompanying policy
19
Launch of ‘Advancing Sustainably
Safety’
20
The goal of inherently or sustainably safe road
traffic is to prevent crashes and, where this is not
possible, to reduce the chance of severe injury to
(almost) zero. We can achieve this by means of a
proactive approach with 'man as the measure of
all things' as a starting point. This approach
recognizes people's physical vulnerability, but
also what they are capable of (people make
errors, after all) and what they are willing to do
(people do not always abide by the rules). In the
first place, the surroundings, such as the road
and the vehicle, must be modified to meet
these human characteristics. In addition,
education should optimally prepare people for
the traffic task and their final behaviour must be
checked.
The proactive approach of Sustainable Safety
means that measures are taken in the chain of
'system design' to 'traffic behaviour' as early as
possible. By preventing system errors, human
error and/or serious outcomes of crashes can be
prevented; road safety thus becomes less
dependent on the individual choices of road users.
This implies that responsibility for safe traffic not
only lies with road users but also with those who
design and manage the elements of the traffic
system such as infrastructure, vehicles and
education.
Five principles are crucial for a sustainably safe
traffic system (see Table 1). These are the three
well-known principles of the original Sustainable
Safety vision and two new principles: forgivingness
and state awareness. The principles are based
on theories from traffic planning and engineering,
biomechanics and psychology, and are explained
below.
Traffic planning
Also in the advanced version of Sustainable
Safety, the road network should be functionally
subdivided into three main road types. The two
'extreme' road types are through-roads (which
allow traffic to flow) and access roads (which
provide access to destinations). The third type are
the distributor roads, to literally and figuratively
connect the two 'extreme' road types. Because
traffic functions are mixed on distributor roads
(and no monofunctionality exists), this road type
has relatively high crash risks.
Preventing unsafe acts
People can act at three levels: knowledge-based,
rule-based and skill-based. The more experienced
people become in performing a particular task, the
more automatic the acts become and the fewer
(serious) errors they make. In order to minimize
dangerous errors, Sustainable Safety aims at
avoiding knowledge-based behaviour when
performing acts. To achieve this, road users must
of course be sufficiently trained in their task of
traffic participation on the one hand, while the
road design should meet their expectations on
the other hand. To meet the expectations of road
users, the principle of predictability is used. In
the advanced Sustainable Safety vision, we have
translated this principle as continuity and
consistency in road design: the layout should
support the road user's expectations along the
entire route, while all elements of the road design
should conform to these expectations.
People not only make traffic unsafe by unintentional
errors but also by deliberate violations. The
original Sustainable Safety vision did not emphasize
deliberate violations explicitly as causes of
crashes as much as this advanced version.
When the traffic environment does not more or
less automatically invite correct and safe behaviour,
road users should comply with the rules
from an inner motive. In this case, behaviour is the
most consistent and thus sustainable. To improve
rule acceptation, rules should be appropriate to
the traffic environment and credible to road
users, and people should be educated to accept
the usefulness of rules. For those who still fail to
obey the rules, the Sustainable Safety vision
includes enforcement with a fairly good chance
of being caught when violating rules.
Advancing Sustainable Safety also emphasizes
that traffic should be sustainably safe for everybody
and not just for 'the average road user'
(whatever that means). This is illustrated by a
task capability model. This model states that the
task capability level of road users is the result of
their competences and their situational state
(e.g. influenced by fatigue, stress, drugs, etc.).
To be a safe road user, the task capability should
be good enough to cope with the task demands.
These task demands are dominated by the
environment, but may be altered by the road user
himself, for example by driving faster or slower.
Table 1. The five Sustainable Safety principles briefly described.
Functionality of roads Monofunctionality of roads, as either through-roads, distributor roads,
access roads, in a hierarchically structured road network
Homogeneity of masses and/or speed and direction Equality in speed, direction and masses at medium and high speeds
Predictability of road course and road user behaviour by Road environment and road user behaviour that support road user
a recognizable road design expectations via consistency and continuity in road design
Forgivingness of the environment and of road users Injury limitation through a forgiving road environment and anticipation of
road user behaviour
State awareness by the road user Ability to assess one's own task capability
There are five principles that lead to sustainably safe road traffic: functionality, homogeneity,
predictability, forgivingness (of the road layout and of road users) and state awareness
(by the road user). The last two principles are new in this advanced Sustainable Safety vision.
All five principles have their origins in scientific theories.
S W O V • A D V A N C I N G S U S T A I N A B L E S A F E T Y I N B R I E F 3
The principles of
Sustainable Safety
Sustainable Safety principle Description
People differ in their task capability. For example,
inexperienced road users and the elderly have
poorly developed or declining competences and
thus a lower task capability. The average road
user also has a lower task capability if he is tired
or under the influence of alcohol or drugs, for
example. This is why basic generic road safety
measures must be supplemented with specific
measures targeted at groups with a diminished
task capability. These specific measures are
mainly a matter of education and Intelligent
Transport Systems (ITS) aimed at the new
Sustainable Safety principle of state awareness.
If road users can correctly assess their own task
capability (or state), they can decide not to travel
or make fewer demands on themselves when
they assess themselves as being insufficiently
capable of driving a car. Examples are: not
having enough driving experience, being too
tired, having drunk too much, etc..
Very capable road users can also help prevent
crashes through the social elaboration of the
forgivingness principle. Forgiving road behaviour
(e.g. anticipating behaviour) by more capable
road users should enable less capable road
users to make errors and go unpunished. In
order to work correctively, the less capable
should recognize their errors as such, but the
errors should less often result in a crash.
Dealing with physical vulnerability
When road users are involved in a road crash,
their physical vulnerability is at issue. Sustainable
Safety attempts to minimize the seriousness of
the outcome with the principles of forgivingness
(of the surroundings) and homogeneity. The first
principle is elaborated in safe road shoulders.
The last principle states that conflicts between
different road user types must be avoided by
separating them in the infrastructure. If conflicts
cannot be prevented, speeds should be
managed in such a way that any crash will not
have serious consequences. For various traffic
situations, Sustainable Safety proposes a system
of 'safe' speeds for cars (see Table 2).
Due to growing mobility, and as a result increased
exposure to risk, the number of road casualties
increased during the twentieth century right up to
the early 1970s. From then on the trend changed
into a downward one. This is still the case, in
spite of ever-increasing exposure. The Netherlands
has a good record compared with other countries.
Together with the United Kingdom and Sweden,
it is one of the safest countries in the European
Union and the world. Despite this, the safety level
in all three countries is still unacceptably high.
With regard to the Netherlands, there are a
number of prominent issues.
Two modes of transport are particularly notable:
motorized two-wheelers because of their
relatively high crash rates (per vehicle kilometre),
and cars because of their dominant road safety
role (see Figure 1). Although car crash rates are
relatively low and still declining continuously, a
large proportion of casualties are car occupants.
In crashes, the car has a dual role: in collisions
with pedestrians and cyclists they are
disproportionately strong and with respect to
heavy goods vehicles and obstacles they are the
weaker party.
The highest crash rates are those on rural roads
with an 80 km/h speed limit for all vehicles and
urban roads with a 50 km/h speed limit. This is
partly a result of the relatively high speeds
combined with the combination of different types
of road user. A high proportion of crashes on
rural roads results from single vehicle conflicts.
Crashes on urban roads tend to be on intersections
and transverse conflicts.
Road types combined with allowed road users Safe speed (km/h)
Roads with possible conflicts between cars and unprotected road users 30
Intersections with possible transverse conflicts between cars 50
Roads with possible frontal conflicts between cars 70
Roads with no possible frontal or transverse conflicts between road users ≥ 100
Table 2. Proposal for safe speeds, given possible conflicts between road users.
Road safety
developments
Over the last 30 years, road safety in the Netherlands has improved considerably. However,
there are still too many road deaths in crashes that would not have occurred or would have had
a better outcome in completely sustainably safe road traffic. Future social developments such
as increased mobility and an aging population also emphasize the continued need to focus on
how sustainably safe road traffic may be achieved.
Year
Deathsbymodalsplit
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Pedestrian
Bicycle
(Light) moped
Motorcycle
Car
Van/lorry/bus
Other
1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005
4 S W O V • A D V A N C I N G S U S T A I N A B L E S A F E T Y I N B R I E F
Figure 1. Annual registered number of road deaths in the Netherlands by modal split 1950-2004.
Source: Transport Research Centre.
Young people (and especially young males) and
the elderly (over 75) stand out because they have
a high casualty rate. This is generally age-related:
young people lack experience and have a
tendency to show off, while the elderly are more
physically vulnerable.
Road crash causes
In the first place, the danger of traffic lies in the
'basic risk factors': speed, differences in mass
between road users, and people's physical
vulnerability. In a sustainably safe traffic system,
these basic risk factors are minimized.
Furthermore, the crash rate rises due to 'road
user-related factors' such as a lack of driving
experience (especially among young people),
use of psychoactive substances (including
alcohol and drugs), fatigue, emotions and
distractions (e.g. using a mobile phone while
driving).
Road crashes are mainly the result of unsafe
(i.e. dangerous) road user acts: unintentional
errors and deliberate violations. A sustainably
safe traffic system attempts to exclude such
acts as far as possible, or at least prevent any
serious consequences.
Future developments
Various social developments can affect future
road safety. It is important that policy applies a
sustainably safe basis to tackle them. In the first
place, the growing economy will lead to greater
exposure of both cars and lorries. Any changes
in the pricing policy will influence this, although
what these influences are is not yet known. We
can also expect better quality vehicles from a
growing economy. On the other hand, a growth
in the 24-hour economy will lead to increased
fatigue among road users.
Demographic developments are that the
population is aging and is becoming increasingly
individualistic. This will mean greater distances
between dwellings and a greater distance to
travel. In addition, families where both parents
work will create more traffic near schools as they
combine commuting to work with the school run.
With regard to social-cultural developments, the
Netherlands will remain a country with a wide
variety of (sub)cultures and denominations.
Together with higher traffic volumes and traffic
densities, we have to face increasing problems
of aggression and intolerance in traffic.
Expressing the need for life's 'norms' and
'values' will increase and be accompanied by a
greater need for a healthy and clean living environment.
This is expected to have particularly
great effects on spatial planning; road safety
requirements must be included in this planning.
Finally, government organization shows a clear
tendency towards greater decentralization on the
one hand, and more EU influence on the other
hand. There is also a tendency to create a shift in
responsibility from the authorities to the individual.
But this can only be a safe solution if the government
has taken sufficient regulating measures on
a sustainably safe basis.
S W O V • A D V A N C I N G S U S T A I N A B L E S A F E T Y I N B R I E F 5
During the last decade, Sustainable Safety has
been the leitmotif behind improving road safety in
the Netherlands. This vision is also internationally
regarded as authoritative. Perhaps the most
important step taken since the launch of
Sustainable Safety in 1992 was the Start-up
Programme Sustainable Safety of 1997. This
agreement contained 24 action plans of the
government and the regional and local authorities.
The parties cooperated successfully, both in the
preparation and in the implementation of the
Start-up Programme. Regional and local
authorities spent even more money in the implementation
than actually planned in the subsidy
arrangement.
The implementation to date
But did the Start-up Programme itself adequately
reflect the Sustainable Safety vision? What
aspects of the original vision have been put into
practice and what effects have they had? To date,
Sustainable Safety has mainly been translated
into measures for a safer road infrastructure.
Although it is important to focus extensively on
the infrastructure, the vision embraces the whole
interaction between 'human', 'vehicle', and 'road'.
The past 15 years have certainly seen developments
in education, enforcement, and vehicle
improvement, but either they have not been as
elaborate as the infrastructural measures or they
have been too separate from the Start-up
Programme and its underlying vision.
Furthermore, safety-improving ITS developments
have only become visible in the last few years and
will provide a great contribution to sustainable
road safety improvements in the future.
Advancing Sustainable Safety also wants to
Sustainable Safety to date:
effects and lessons
The implementation of Sustainable Safety resulted in many improvements during the period
1990-2005. However, the future requires a shift in emphasis. There has been too little focus on
the non-infrastructural aspects of the vision, whereas this is considered to be essential.
Furthermore, we must acknowledge that in the practical application of the vision, the demands
may have been overly moderated because of the rather low-cost design of the infrastructure.
emphasize these non-infrastructural aspects of
the vision and the integrated approach of all
these elements.
The application of the vision to infrastructure has
found its way into manuals and guidelines for
road design and it is being implemented in practice
as well. Over the last few years, practically
the entire road network has been categorized
into three functional categories and five different
types of roads. In addition, the Start-up Programme
chose to target access roads because of the
wide support among the population to do
something about these roads. This emphasis
diverted attention somewhat from the distributor
roads. These have a relatively high crash rate
and it is difficult to introduce Sustainable Safety
principles in practice here. This is why little has
been done as yet to deal with distributor roads,
other than the construction of roundabouts and
cycle tracks.
We must also acknowledge that, although access
roads were targeted, they have only been dealt
with partially. Even though more kilometres were
converted into 30 km/h and 60 km/h zones than
planned, this was mostly done in a low-cost way.
This was understandable because of the limited
funds and the desire to implement Sustainable
Safety on a large scale. However, we must now
ask ourselves whether this was all too low-cost,
not being as effective as expected.
Effects and lessons for the future
We do not know enough about the safety effects
of Sustainable Safety measures yet. These
measures have not been structurally assessed,
although we were able to make rough estimations
of their safety effects. Ad hoc evaluations indicate
moderate to very positive effects of various
(infrastructural) measures. On this basis, we have
estimated that all the infrastructural Sustainable
Safety measures taken at the time of the Start-up
programme have together saved 6% of severe
casualties (fatalities and in-patients) in the
Netherlands. In the same period, the construction
of 30 km/h and 60 km/h zones saved an estimated
60% and 40% respectively of severe casualties
per kilometre road in these zones. However,
if we remember that in such zones there should
no longer be any severe casualties, we must
conclude that the low-cost implementation was
too great a compromise for road safety.
Furthermore, there are indications that the speed
of motorized traffic has not decreased sufficiently
in these zones.
On the right track
We must conclude that we are certainly on the
right track, although we do not have a sustainably
safe traffic system yet. In addition, we still need
to gather more information regarding the contents
of the measures, in the area of infrastructure as
well as in the areas of education, enforcement
and vehicle and technological measures. All this
information is important if we are to work costeffectively
towards a sustainably safe road system.
For the continued implementation of Sustainable
Safety, new agreements between the police,
judicial authorities, social organizations and
industry are required for effective and efficient
implementation of policies. This process can be
facilitated by the recently implemented National
Road Safety Initiative.
Over the last few years, the original three
Sustainably Safe vision principles have been
translated into Dutch guidelines for road design
on a large scale and applied in practice.
Adapting the infrastructure has had a rather
positive overall effect already. The effectiveness
of individual measures ranged from 20% to 60%
casualty reduction. Infrastructural measures
taken between 1997 and 2002 have saved about
6% of fatalities and hospitalizations nationwide.
Functionality
It has not yet been made possible to assess
plans to categorize roads in five different road
types on their ability to meet the requirements of
the Sustainable Safety vision. Additional requireRoad
type and general speed limit Bottlenecks in the actual road design
Categorizing of the 'old' trunk roads (with a single carriageway and a 100 km/h speed limit) as regional throughThrough-road
(100 km/h) road without essential changes such as separation of driving directions and grade separated intersections.
Grade separated intersections have only been incidentally constructed because of a lack of physical space
and funds.
Separation of driving directions has mostly been done by road marking only, instead of a physical separation
which prevents head-on collisions.
Rural distributor road (80 km/h) Parallel roads are often used by a combination of agricultural vehicles, mopeds and bicycles, leading to huge
differences in mass and (mostly) speed.
Many intersections of distributor roads do not (yet) have traffic signals; the question is how to achieve a safe
speed of 30 km/h (for mopeds and bicycles) or 50 km/h (for motor vehicles).
Urban distributor road (50 km/h) Speed of motorized traffic at pedestrian and bicycle crossings is often higher than the safe speed of 30 km/h.
Rural access road (60 km/h) Speed limit of 60 km/h is too high, especially at intersections.
Urban access road (30 km/h) Implementation is often too low-cost, which lead people to drive faster than 30 km/h.
6 S W O V • A D V A N C I N G S U S T A I N A B L E S A F E T Y I N B R I E F
Infrastructure
The planning and design of the road infrastructure are important subjects in the Sustainable
Safety vision. Until now, the design principles of functionality, homogeneity and predictability
have been the core principles. In the future we also want to focus more on the principle of
forgivingness in the traffic environment.
Table 3. Several important bottlenecks in the design of various road types in the Netherlands.
ments for road networks are elaborated. In addition,
there are still several bottlenecks in the
design of the various road types (see Table 3).
Sometimes there is still insufficient knowledge to
tackle them with concrete proposals.
Homogeneity
The principle of homogeneity (of mass, speed,
driving direction) has been further elaborated in
the advanced vision. Where crashes can occur,
the driving speed should be lowered to the
extent that only 'safe collision speeds' remain.
This idea is not incorporated into the existing
design guidelines and the situation leaves a lot to
be desired particularly on rural distributor roads
and access roads. Many road authorities in the
Netherlands are working on designs to make
roads really sustainably safe.
Predictability
For the principle of predictability the essential
features of the five Sustainable Safety road types
must be defined. They should provide a
minimum level of Sustainable Safety, which is
something that the current 'essential recognition
characteristics' cannot do yet. There are also
some remaining questions about their basis.
In any case, in order to determine the ultimate,
essential Sustainable Safety characteristics, more
knowledge is required about the recognition and
predictability of the various road categories,
especially when it concerns the expectations of
road users at intersections.
Forgivingness
For the infrastructure, the application of the new
principle of forgivingness is mainly a matter of road
shoulders, especially on rural distributor roads.
A vehicle that leaves the road should not collide
with any obstacles or road furniture, resulting in
severe injury. There is already sufficient knowledge
to completely apply this principle to the
Netherlands' infrastructure. However, additional
research is needed to answer questions such as:
when are roadside safety structures needed and
which criteria should they meet?
In summary
If we look back at the field of infrastructure in the
Netherlands over the last few years, it is clear
that there have been significant developments
and that these have led to increased road safety.
However, we do not fully understand how to plan
and to design in a sustainably safe way. SWOV
recommends initiating a platform to further analyse
the problems of infrastructure and develop
possible solutions in the Netherlands.
In the past, improvements in vehicle safety have
reduced the number of road casualties significantly,
especially because severe injury has been prevented.
The question now is how we can further
sustainably improve vehicle safety. An independent
national policy can only make a modest
contribution in this respect. The main issues are
international regulations, the policy of vehicle
manufacturers and developments such as the
EuroNCAP programme. A combination of
governments, research institutes and consumer
organizations tests car safety in this programme.
However, not all vehicle developments are
directly aimed at road safety. Examples of this
are cleaner and quieter engines, increasingly
heavy vehicles, new technological possibilities
(ITS, hybrids) and consumer wishes (e.g. wanting
to drive a SUV). We should conduct more structural
investigation into whether these developments
offer possibilities or are actually a threat to
road safety.
Mass, protection, and compatibility
The heavier the car, the safer it is for its occupants
and the more dangerous it is for a lighter crash
opponent. This is clearly a problem in collisions
with vulnerable road users. It is therefore essential
to intensify vehicle requirements, not only for
pedestrian safety but also for the safety of cyclists
and motorized two-wheelers. An example is the
car front designed to be cyclist-friendly as well as
pedestrian-friendly.
The problem of incompatibility is also important
between lorries and cars and, increasingly,
among cars. A particular problem is the heavy,
high, rigid SUV. A collision between unequal
vehicle types usually has severe consequences
for the occupants of the lighter cars, even if they
meet the current crash criteria. After all, crash
tests do not take (the weight of) the crash
opponent into consideration. Therefore heavier
vehicles should meet stricter requirements.
Crash criteria and road layout
In a sustainably safe traffic system, the vehicle
features must correspond with the road layout as
far as possible so that any crashes can end
without severe injury. We examined the extent to
S W O V • A D V A N C I N G S U S T A I N A B L E S A F E T Y I N B R I E F 7
Vehicles
Vehicle safety is and will remain particularly important in the Sustainable Safety vision with
regard to the principle of homogeneity. After all, the outcome of collisions is strongly determined
by differences in speed, direction and mass. But if there is a crash, the vehicle should also be
forgiving to its passengers by providing protection, and to the crash opponent.
Intelligent Transport Systems can make their own
unique contribution to improving road safety. The
expectations are particularly good for systems
directly aimed at safety. It has been estimated
that safety-directed ITS could lead to 40% less
fatalities and injured. In reality, however, many of
its potential has not been (fully) developed yet.
Moreover, large-scale implementation may bring
all sorts of problems to light. In addition, the net
effect of many of these systems is rather uncertain
as yet: the interaction with human behaviour
(such as risk compensation) is often still not
researched, and large-scale implementation is
very complex. Another reason why ITS has not
contributed more to greater safety is because its
introduction has not been directly aimed at road
safety, but rather at congestion relief and driving
comfort. Road safety aspects are not always
included, and certain ITS applications can even
undermine road safety. Despite this situation and
associated uncertainties, ITS has great potential
to further promote road safety (see Box).
Promising ITS
Informing and warning ITS applications are more
promising than intervening variants, at least to
start with, because they often have more public
support and can therefore be implemented faster.
These are systems aimed at speed management
and dynamic speed limits by the use of ISA
(Intelligent Speed Adaptation which assists the
predictability of the road).
It is also important to join in strong, promising
ITS developments, e.g. in the field of congestion
relief, increasing comfort and environmental
improvements. Road safety should be integrated
in this, by making use of navigation systems to
direct road users along the shortest and safest
routes, for example.
In a next phase, one could think of implementation
of advanced systems, such as ITS applications
that regulate safe access to traffic (state awareness).
An example of this is the alcohol interlock
(alcolock), but one could also think of driving
licence locks and seatbelt locks.
Long-term plans to create sustainably safe road
transport will perhaps involve the automation of
more and more of the traffic flow in order to
prevent human errors. A vehicle will thus drive
itself, while the driver only has a controlling
function. But there is still a long way to go.
More than ever, it is important that all the parties
involved in ITS applications (governments, industry,
knowledge institutes, interest groups, representatives
of consumers' organizations, etc.) join
forces to ensure that the potentially effective ITS
instruments result in casualty reduction indeed.
At the same time, it is important to continue with
the more traditional measures as well, and not to
wait for ITS applications to make their entrance.
The future is too uncertain for this.
The use of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) deserves a prominent place in the advanced
Sustainable Safety vision. ITS is an important tool for making road user behaviour less dependent
on or even independent of individual choices.
THE POWER OF ITS: FLEXIBLE AND DYNAMIC
The current traffic system is largely statically organized, whereas the
traffic should be safe for the various road users in highly changing
conditions: in both busy and quiet conditions, and in both fine weather
and slippery conditions and fog.
To this traffic system, ITS adds dynamics and flexibility (adaptation to
changes in time and circumstances). With the right information at the
right place and at the right time, ITS makes it possible to respond to
specific conditions. This further helps traffic to become inherently safe.
8 S W O V • A D V A N C I N G S U S T A I N A B L E S A F E T Y I N B R I E F
Intelligent
Transport Systems
which this is the case by comparing current
crash tests and test speeds with the various
conflicts and the corresponding collision speeds
permitted in a sustainably safe road layout. The
bottlenecks are all on rural roads, in situations
where the car can offer too little crashworthiness
to its own occupants and crash opponent (see
Table 4). To solve these bottlenecks with safer
vehicles, the crash tests must be extended and
adapted. Until this is possible and because the
conflicts concerned cannot be eliminated, the
driving speed in these situations will have to be
lowered to ensure a 'safe collision speed' (see
also Table 2).
Table 4. Differences between crash criteria and current speed limits.
Through-road 100 and 120 km/h Too dangerous in rear-end collisions.
Distributor road 80 km/h Side impact tests only go up to 50 km/h whereas 64 km/h is essential.
Speeds should be max. 70 km/h in case of possible frontal car conflicts.
Access road 60 km/h Pedestrian-friendly car front is not adequate for cyclists.
Intersection 80 km/h roads No crashworthiness in side impacts up to 64 km/h
(although crash tests do match an intersection speed limit of 50 km/h).
Pedestrian and/or cyclist crossing Cars are faster than a safe 30 km/h.
Obstacles 80 km/h roads Car side not adequate in side impacts.
Location Mismatch of crash test and practice
Graphics: Siemens VDO Automotive
Learning in and about traffic is crucial. People
learn more or less continuously from their own
experiences and from examples set by others.
Learning from formal education only accounts for
a small part. Because of inherent time constraints,
it is a challenge to focus formal education on
issues on which it will have the greatest impact
and the highest effectiveness. For this reason, in
the advanced version of Sustainable Safety five
themes were chosen as the main focus of traffic
education. These are:
• insufficient road safety problem awareness
and low acceptance of Sustainable Safety
measures;
• no or insufficient use of strategic safety
considerations in traffic choices
(vehicle choice, route choice);
• deliberate violations;
• incorrect and dangerous behavioural habits;
• poorly prepared novices.
These five themes share the characteristics of
being very relevant to road safety: they involve
relatively large groups of road users, education
is the appropriate instrument to do something
about these themes, and it can be realized.
Education should primarily focus on subjects
which people cannot learn from being in traffic,
because their relation to road safety cannot be
clearly derived from traffic itself. Examples are
the relation of road safety to driving speed, to the
organization of the transport system, to the road
design, and to the permitted manoeuvres (e.g.
understanding the 'essential recognition
characteristics'), to self-overestimation etc. The
principles of state awareness and forgiving traffic
behaviour can be developed here. Furthermore
education must focus more on avoiding dangerous
situations. In the Netherlands, traffic education
should change its focus from improving operational
skills (e.g. vehicle control) to promoting the
traffic insight which is crucial to safe road use.
A broader learning environment
In the Netherlands, traffic education has become
too much the task of the government (including
schools) and, as a result, does not achieve its
full potential. This is why education should be
broadened. Responsibility for training operational
skills in novices should be returned to parents
and coaches: an informal education of this kind
can lead to the strengthening of behavioural
routines that were correctly taught in formal
education. More than was the case in the past,
we should remember that road users continuously
learn from their own experiences. We can
steer the learning process in the right
direction with a coherent package of measures.
In order to create a 'broader learning environment'
of formal and informal education, we need
cooperation between organizations as well as
support with respect to the educational materials.
Such cooperation will provide these organizations
with sufficient knowledge, as well as sufficient
funds, to execute their task. An important
guidance role for the Dutch government lies in
the traffic education renewal process described
here.
Laws and their
enforcement
In traffic we are obliged to obey many rules.
This can be done most 'sustainably' when it
is easy and does not involve any negative
feelings. To achieve this, legislation should
logically fit the traffic environment (predictability).
Sustainable law enforcement intervenes
at the earliest possible time and prevents
dangerous behaviour (state awareness).
S W O V • A D V A N C I N G S U S T A I N A B L E S A F E T Y I N B R I E F 9
Education
In its many manifestations, traffic education plays an important role in Sustainable Safety,
but until now it has perhaps been somewhat underdeveloped in the Netherlands. Advancing
Sustainable Safety defines five behavioural themes as educational aims. These five areas
greatly enlarge the playing field to which we are traditionally accustomed.
Laws such as speed limits, mandatory wearing
of seatbelts or crash helmets, alcohol limit,
priority regulations, etc. are not sustainably safe.
After all, they can be violated intentionally or
unintentionally. We need more for a sustainably
safe embedding of laws in the traffic system.
The reasons why people comply with rules are
important here.
Intentional and unintentional
compliance
One reason for intentionally obeying laws is the
threat of punishment, for example. However, we
usually comply with rules because we think that
we will ultimately benefit from them and the
'costs' are too high if we do not (e.g. a greater
chance of a crash or fine). We can also comply
with rules because we really believe in them,
'because that's how we ought to behave'
(normative perspective). This last motivation is
the most 'internalized' and thus sustainable.
We comply with rules unintentionally or spontaneously
when they are prompted by the environment:
the road layout incites correct behaviour
or we imitate the correct behaviour of others.
Preconditions for spontaneous
compliance
A sustainably safe traffic system should aim at
spontaneous compliance with rules, i.e. unintentional
compliance or compliance governed by
inner motivation. To achieve this, rules must fulfil
a number of preconditions. Naturally the first one
is that we know the rules. Then it is important
that rules are clear, specific and understandable,
and that violations are easy to identify.
We comply more easily, perhaps even
subconsciously, if they logically fit the road
environment. Moreover, if the link with our own
safety is clear and we sense that the rules are
fair and neutral, we experience them as 'just'
and are willing to comply with them.
Enforcement
However, not all of us are motivated to comply
with the rules all the time. Even if the above
preconditions have been met, we need (some)
pressure. This can be achieved by traffic
The exact relationship between speed and
crashes is complex and depends on a wide
range of specific factors. However, in general it
can be said that the higher the speed, the
greater the risk of a crash and severe injury
(see Figure 2). It is precisely these two risks
that Sustainable Safety tries to minimize.
We drive too fast and we enjoy it
On average, 40-45% of drivers in the Netherlands
exceed the posted speed limit. Furthermore,
some drivers enjoy driving fast, finding it
exciting and challenging. We have calculated that
if 90% of all drivers kept to the speed limit, there
would be 25% fewer fatalities and in-patients a
year in the Netherlands. Authorities should therefore
aim to ensure compliance with the speed
limits within the next 10 years.
Safe, credible limits and good
information
The key concepts in a sustainably safe traffic
system are safe, credible limits and good information
about them. The following must be done
if sustainably safe speeds are to be achieved in
the Netherlands.
1. Determine safe speeds and safe limits
First of all we must determine the safe driving
speed in order to set the speed limit corresponding
with this safe speed. Whether or not a speed
is safe depends initially on the number and type
of potential conflicts (homogeneity principle).
In Sustainable Safety this has led to the requirement
that where motorized vehicles mix with
vulnerable road users, the motorized vehicle's
speed must be lowered. The complexity of the
situation also determines what speed can be
regarded as safe.
2. Credible limits
Limits must also be credible. Motorists must
acknowledge the limit as the 'logical' one in the
local conditions; that the limit corresponds with
the road layout (predictability principle). When a
limit is not credible, there are two options:
1. change the road layout, or
2. change the limit.
This last point means that the limit may be raised
or lowered, within the margins of safe limits.
3. Proper information
An obvious precondition is that the road user is
always aware of the current speed limit.
Hectometre posts can give information about the
limit, as is currently done along the 100 km/h
segments on the motorway network. However,
other types of marking and signing can also be
used. Eventually, ITS applications may be able to
provide information about the actual speed limit
to the driver inside the vehicle. The information
must be applied very consistently and, also, it
must be properly explained to the road user.
4. Logical location and correct dimensions
of physical engineering measures
When the (safe) limit corresponds with the road
characteristics and the surroundings, the use of
physical speed reduction measures such as
speed bumps, could be reduced. Using speed
bumps, raised areas and roundabouts should be
limited to 'logical' locations, e.g. at zebra
crossings, junctions or school exits.
Figure 2. The relative crash risk whilst driving under the influence of alcohol and at different speeds
(on Australian urban roads with a speed limit of 60 km/h). From this graph it can be concluded that
driving too fast is at least as dangerous as driving under the influence of alcohol.
1 0 S W O V • A D V A N C I N G S U S T A I N A B L E S A F E T Y I N B R I E F
35
30
25
20
15
10
Relativerisk
Speed (km/h)
BAG (‰)
5
1
60
0
65
0.5
70
0.8
75
1.2
80
2.1
Speed
Alcohol
Speed management
With speed management, we can influence both the homogeneity of road traffic and the
predictability of road user behaviour and the road course. Speed management is thus an
important means of achieving sustainably safe traffic and offers sufficient potential for
action, both in the short and long term.
surveillance with a sufficiently high (subjective)
chance of being caught, e.g. targeting specific
groups, and with sufficiently heavy penalties. In
sustainably safe road traffic, enforcement and
surveillance before road users have even started
their journey (e.g. alcohol locks or seatbelt locks)
are particularly suitable.
In the future, intelligent transport systems will be
able to help reducing the number of violations in
this way. They will be able to warn a driver when
he or she is unintentionally violating a rule.
They can also be used as a radical method for
specific target groups such as recidivists or
heavy offenders.
Drink driving
In the Netherlands, the proportion of drink driving
offenders among motorists has declined by more
than three quarters over the past 30 years. At
first sight this would seem to indicate a very
successful policy, in view of the fact that alcohol
is such a large crash risk factor. However, the
effect on the alcohol-related road toll is somewhat
disappointing. The proportion of alcohol-related
serious injuries (i.e. the sum of fatalities and
in-patients) has declined much less than the
proportion of offenders (see Figure 3).
Exact data on the number of alcohol-related road
injuries in the Netherlands is not available. The
police do not systematically record alcohol-related
crashes and we know that the official data grossly
underestimates them.
A recent regional SWOV-study showed that, in
the 2000-2003 period, 25-30% of serious road
injuries among car drivers were attributable to
drink driving. In a third of these cases, a combination
of alcohol and drugs had been used.
The simultaneous use of various drugs and the
combined use of alcohol and drugs result in a
considerable increase in crash and injury risk.
The problem of alcohol in traffic can no longer be
dealt with separately from the problem of drugs
in traffic.
Research in the Netherlands has also shown that
heavy drinkers are only a small proportion of all
offenders, but that they are responsible for three
quarters of all alcohol-related serious road injuries.
Traditionally, the problems are concentrated
during nighttime hours, among customers of
pubs and discos etc., and among young men.
This last group is also the largest user of drugs
together with alcohol.
Approach
Drink driving is tackled at various levels: by
legislation, police enforcement, education,
punishment, rehabilitation and disqualification.
The proportion of drink driving offenders in 2004
was the lowest ever in the Netherlands. Since
the beginning of the new millennium, police
Drink-and-drug driving
5-year period
1995-99
Index
drink driving offenders
alcohol-related injuries
2000-041990-941985-891980-841975-791970-74
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
S W O V • A D V A N C I N G S U S T A I N A B L E S A F E T Y I N B R I E F 1 1
In a sustainably safe traffic system, there is no room for drunk drivers. However, drink driving is
still a persistent problem to which the relatively new problem of drug driving has been added.
Advancing Sustainable Safety gives various ways in which we can lessen drink-and-drug driving
and possibly exclude it.
5. Credible enforcement
With safe, credible limits and sufficient information
about these limits, we expect the number of
speeding offences to drop considerably.
However, as long as motorists can choose their
own speeds, there will always be a group that
deliberately, and perhaps regularly exceeds the
speed limits. To reach this group, enforcement
remains essential for the time being. Speed
enforcement is a topic that is currently subject to
much public debate. Common complaints are that
only the minor offenders are caught, preferably at
moments when there is no other traffic, and that
speeding fines are only meant to support the
National Treasury. In other words, the credibility
of speed enforcement still requires some im-
provement.
6. Dynamic limits and ISA
A speed limit system is more credible when it
not only takes the general circumstances into
account, but also the specific circumstances at
that moment. An example of such a flexible limit
is a limit determined by weather conditions. For
example, for the last twenty years, speed limits
on French motorways have been lowered in
rainy conditions.
Ultimately, the aim is to create a system of
completely dynamic limits in which the safest
limit is adjusted to the current circumstances.
Information about the actual speed limit, depending
on these circumstances, should be given to
the driver inside the vehicle everywhere and at all
times. Such a system could be integrated with
Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA).
Figure 3. Indexed development of the proportion of drink driving offenders among motorists and
the proportion of serious injuries that is alcohol-related (1980-84 = 100).
1 2 S W O V • A D V A N C I N G S U S T A I N A B L E S A F E T Y I N B R I E F
Youngsters are a special group of road users. They
begin their traffic 'careers' between the ages of
12 and 15 with successively different means of
transport: they start with a bicycle, progress to a
moped and ultimately switch to the car or even a
motorbike or lorry. At the same time they are
going through puberty and adolescence, involving
life events such as major physical changes,
increasing independence, finding a partner,
choosing a profession. This is therefore a tumultuous
period in their lives.
High crash rates
As an independent road user, the probability of a
youngster becoming a crash casualty is much
higher than for children and adults. In fact, traffic
is the main cause of death for this age group.
Although their crash rates have gradually
decreased over the last 20 years, this has been
less sharp than for other age groups. With car
drivers for example, the difference in crash rates
between young (18-24) and older drivers (30-59)
is increasing. Twenty years ago, the fatal crash
involvement rate of young motorists was three
times higher than that of older motorists; today it
is six times higher.
Age, experience and exposure to
danger
The high crash rate related to young motorists is
caused by a combination of age-related characteristics,
lack of experience and exposure to
dangerous circumstances.
This is the age of 'sowing one's wild oats', when
many long for adventure, rebel against existing
norms, may be strongly influenced by friends and
overestimate their own capabilities.
Lack of experience plays its part in every new traffic
role adopted by the young. In this phase it is mainly
a matter of a lack of higher order skills such as traffic
insight, self-knowledge, and hazard perception.
The young tend to be exposed to hazards more
often due to the lack of injury protection offered
by bicycles and mopeds. Furthermore, mopeds
can reach high speeds. Youngsters also drive
cars in situations when they are more vulnerable,
such as at night and with passengers who could
distract them.
What can Sustainable Safety mean to
the young?
In general, a sustainably safe traffic environment
will lower the high crash rate of the young (generic
measures). But in a sustainably safe traffic
system, their crash rate must also be reduced
further by specific measures, preferably in the
earliest possible phase. School and driving
instruction (formal education) should place less
emphasis on basic skills and greater emphasis
on gaining traffic insight and self-knowledge.
Young and novice drivers
enforcement of drink driving has more than
doubled; at present, more than two million drivers
are tested annually at random for alcohol. SWOV
recommends using some of the available police
capacity specifically at times and places with
high rates of serious offenders. Improvements
are also possible once serious offenders have
been caught; their cars could have an alcolock
installed as part of their rehabilitation (state
awareness).
Zero tolerance for drugs in combination
with alcohol
For drugs used in combination with other drugs
and/or alcohol, the lowest possible legal limits
are appropriate, the so-called zero-tolerance approach.
However, efficient drug driving enforcement
is still difficult due to a lack of legal limits
and reliable screening devices. Practical and
reliable screening methods are being developed.
Alcolock for everybody?
Of all possible measures against drink driving,
the alcolock seems to fit the Sustainable Safety
vision best. For serious offenders, the alcolock
has proved to be effective and for them it should
be introduced in the Netherlands as quickly as
possible. In the longer term, it might be possible
to install alcolocks in all cars. However, we should
first investigate if the benefit of the compulsory
use of the alcolock by all drivers makes up for
the costs and other possible disadvantages. If
this is the case, it will probably not be difficult to
obtain sufficient support for the measure from
both population and parliament. After all, social
acceptance of drink driving in the Netherlands,
as in other EU countries, is very low.
Traffic is the prime cause of death for young people. As novices, their task capability is less than
that of more experienced road users. Therefore, in sustainably safe traffic, it is a prerequisite for
safety that the young correctly assess their own capability (state awareness) and are prepared
to limit their traffic participation to situations they can safely handle. This should also be the
focus of driving instruction. In addition, specific measures should target young and novice
drivers who still intentionally violate traffic rules.
The novice car driver should be stimulated to
estimate his/her own capabilities and to adjust
the traffic task accordingly (state awareness).
Furthermore, it is important to realize that road
users continuously learn from their own experiences
and from the example of others (informal
learning) and that this learning process takes
much more time than learning basic skills.
Graduated driving licence
The most important specific measure to reduce
the high crash risk of novice drivers is the
graduated driving licence. This is a good way of
gaining experience in safe circumstances: firstly
by accompanied driving, then by solo driving in
In recent decades, the number of pedestrian and
cyclist casualties in the Netherlands has declined
enormously, even though cycling has increased
by 30% since 1980, the distance walked has
remained stable and motorized transport (the
crash opponent) has increased by about 75%.
Since 1980, the number of pedestrian fatalities
has declined by two thirds and the number of
cyclist fatalities by half. But more than 60 pedestrians
are still killed each year and there are nearly
600 in-patients among pedestrians. For cyclists,
these numbers are about 150 and 2,000 a year
respectively.
Both pedestrians and cyclists are vulnerable
because they are unprotected and regularly need
to mix with motorized traffic going (too) fast.
Crossing the road is the most dangerous
Cycling and walking are very important means for children, school pupils and the elderly to
participate in Dutch traffic. In sustainably safe traffic, these vulnerable road users should be
separated from other traffic as much as possible. If this is not possible, there is the 'safe
speed' of 30 km/h or less (homogeneity). To limit severe injury, vehicle adaptations also remain
important (forgivingness).
S W O V • A D V A N C I N G S U S T A I N A B L E S A F E T Y I N B R I E F 1 3
Cyclists and
pedestrians
circumstances with a relatively low crash risks
e.g. without passengers and/or not at night. In
the final phase (the licence on probation in the
Netherlands) there should be stricter rules than
for experienced drivers, e.g. lower alcohol limits
or a stricter points system.
A graduated licensing system might also be
considered for moped riders and motorcyclists.
Other measures
Besides a sustainably safe education, police
enforcement should make it clear to the young
that they cannot 'sow their wild oats' in traffic.
If they feel that there is a good chance of being
caught, the number of intentional violations will
decline. Therefore, the recent introduction of
number plates for mopeds in the Netherlands
will only result in fewer casualties if there actually
is speed enforcement.
Eventually, we can also achieve an enforcing
and disciplinary effect with Intelligent Transport
Systems that record the driving behaviour of
novice drivers (black box). Again, this measure
will only be effective if the records are regularly
checked and assessed.
In addition to suitable punishment for undesirable
behaviour, a reward for desirable behaviour
can promote safety. An example is a special
'rewarding' no-claim insurance discount for
novice drivers.
manoeuvre for pedestrians and most of those
killed are over the age of 75. Most of the inpatients
are children under the age of 11.
Cyclists are killed or hospitalized mainly after
having been hit by a car (55%). These collisions
often occur at urban intersections (58%), of
which 95% have a 50 km/h speed limit.
Positive effect
The original vision of Sustainable Safety resulted
in many measures with a positive effect for
pedestrians and cyclists. Examples are:
• the physical separation of vehicles with major
differences in masses, speeds and directions;
• the measure of directing mopeds onto the
carriageway inside urban areas;
• the implementation of 30 and 60 km/h zones;
• the obligatory side-underrun protection for
new lorries;
• the development of a pedestrian-friendly car
front.
The first three measures are mainly intended to
prevent crashes, while the last two aim to
reduce the severity of crashes.
Sustainable continuation
Future developments in the composition of the
population, spatial planning, mobility policy and
new means of transport will lead to more cyclist
and pedestrian casualties. To prevent this, it will
be necessary to continue with the above-mentioned
measures, especially the full implementation
of the 30 and 60 km/h zones and the
side-underrun protection for lorries, and the
development of a car front that is not only
pedestrian-friendly but also cyclist-friendly.
Furthermore, vehicles can be fitted with speed
adaptation or with night vision improvement
systems that help motorists to see pedestrians
crossing sooner.
The infrastructure should also be tackled. There
should be a motor vehicle speed limit of 30 km/h
when approaching a crossing location. In the
meantime, there are provisional requirements for
1 4 S W O V • A D V A N C I N G S U S T A I N A B L E S A F E T Y I N B R I E F
Motorized
two-wheelers
Riders of motorized two-wheelers: motorcycles, mopeds and light mopeds have high crash
rates. They move at high speeds and sometimes car drivers do not see them. Moreover, their
own vehicle provides practically no protection in a crash. Thus, with regard to the homogeneity
principle, motorized two-wheelers do not actually fit Sustainable Safety.
the design of a sustainably safe pedestrian
crossing. Detailed requirements for cyclist
crossings are still being studied. Another idea
might be the introduction of a combined pedestrian
and cyclist crossing in the Netherlands
(see Figure 4). Another innovative facility is the
'twee-pad' ('two-path'), a combined path for
pedestrians and cyclists. This path is physically
separated from motorized vehicles while pedestrians
are visually separated from cyclists.
There are undoubtedly many more Sustainable
Safety measures that could improve the safety of
cyclists and pedestrians, but initially we must
continue with the current approach.
Figure 4. A combined pedestrian and cyclist crossing in Great Britain, known there as a 'Toucan'
(two can cross). Photo: C. Ford.
Motorized two-wheelers have high crash rates
when compared with other road users. Their
current death rates (per billion kilometres travelled)
in the Netherlands are 75 for motorcyclists
and 91 for moped riders, whereas they are 3 for
motorists and 12 for cyclists. There are few
Sustainably Safe measures that could reduce
the number of motorized two-wheeler casualties.
Motivation
A large proportion of people riding a motorcycle
or (light) moped do so for pleasure or as a
hobby. For some motorcyclists it even constitutes
a lifestyle. This type of vehicle gives their
riders a sense of unrestricted freedom. Studies
have also shown that motorcyclists often fail to
have a correct hazard perception and risk
awareness and this may also apply to moped
riders. This combination of factors leads to
unintentional errors, which in turn can lead to
serious crashes.
Measures
There are no measures imaginable that could
make motorized two-wheelers fit into sustainably
safe road traffic and bring their death rates to
levels of motorists' death rates. However, there
are measures that could reduce their crash rates.
For example, they can be fitted with advanced
braking systems and ITS to influence their speed
and visibility at intersections. In addition, number
plates on (light) mopeds combined with extra
enforcement will have a positive effect.
When choosing measures, one should make a
clear distinction between young and novice
motorcyclists on the one hand, and more
experienced motorcyclists on the other hand,
because the problems of the two groups are
very different. For young and novice motorcyclists,
elements from the graduated driving licence for
motorists could be used, while skill training could
be combined with training in road user behaviour
and hazard perception. For more experienced
motorcyclists, it is important that they learn to
maintain a careful, safe and responsible riding style.
Because a lorry is heavy and rigid, the consequences
of a crash are often serious, especially
for the occupants of the practically always
smaller and lighter crash opponent. A crash with
a lorry can be fatal, even at low speeds. The
involvement of lorries in fatal crashes is relatively
large. In the Netherlands, there are about 130
fatalities among crash opponents of a lorry every
year. The incompatibility of heavy goods vehicles
and other road users is a fundamental problem
and requires a fundamental solution.
Mobility
As road haulage is so important to the economy,
reducing the distances travelled by lorries is not
an option. Prognoses even indicate that distances
travelled will (greatly) increase in the future. Our
aim should be to prevent unnecessary mobility,
for economic as well as road safety reasons.
Such possibilities are: clever use of space,
transport management (using ICT applications,
for example), and transport savings (by adapting
the product and its production process).
Separation
Little can be done structurally about the incompatibility
of heavy and light traffic except to
separate them. The sustainably safe solution is
radical and can only be achieved in the long
term: provide lorries with their own infrastructure
(see Box). Two road networks are necessary for
this: a) through-roads especially for heavy, articulated
lorries and b) regional and local logistic
routes for initial and terminal transport with light
lorries. These light, unarticulated lorries must be
suitable for mixing safely with other traffic. The
two road networks thus also imply two lorry
types. Such a dichotomy also involves different
requirements regarding the driving skills of the
lorry drivers. An example of this is to have drivers
who are specialized in driving either heavy or
light lorries.
Short-term solutions
In the short term, it would be possible to separate
heavy goods vehicles by only allowing them
to use motorways and single lane through-roads
with only grade separated junctions. This means
that heavy lorry journeys would practically all begin
and end at company premises and terminals,
while light lorries carried out further transport via
the secondary road network.
Where the main road network is shared by lorries
and cars, lorries should be equipped with safety
provisions that allow for mixing with cars. For
lighter lorries, these provisions should also be
suited to mixing with mopeds, bicycles, and
pedestrians.
Safety culture
At the moment, a safety culture in Dutch trucking
companies is not the rule, but the exception.
S W O V • A D V A N C I N G S U S T A I N A B L E S A F E T Y I N B R I E F 1 5
Heavy goods vehicles
From the point of view of homogeneity, large and heavy lorries should not mix with other road
users in sustainably safe road traffic. In Advancing Sustainable Safety we have worked out how
to achieve such a situation in the Netherlands in the long term. Short-term measures are also
possible.
A special infrastructure for heavy
goods vehicles has many advantages
• Traffic on main roads becomes safer for cars
and vans with the virtual disappearance of
incompatible heavy lorries.
• There are no more problems with joining and
exiting main roads with the lack of columnforming
by lorries.
• Main roads are relieved of congestion so that
fewer new roads and less road widening is
necessary.
• Wear and tear of the main roads is greatly
reduced because there is hardly any corrugation;
'light-roads' become a fact.
• Road construction design can become more
focussed.
• Rollovers will no longer occur, provided the
lorry infrastructure is narrow and has physical
barriers on both sides.
• 'Lorry roads' can eventually be used for computerized,
probably unmanned transport of
containers, tank and bulk transport, and city
boxes, for example.
The above measures for motorcyclists naturally
also apply to (light) mopeds, but in this case the
emphasis will have to be on the problems of
novice riders, as they are usually inexperienced
young people.
Fundamental discussion
The riding style and hazard perception problems
of motorized two-wheeler riders require fundamental
discussion. We need to find answers for a
range of questions: what crash rates for motorized
two-wheelers are acceptable in society? What
measures are reasonable and justified for reducing
crash rates? Can we separate individual from
collective responsibility for high-risk behaviour?
Many interest groups are involved in motorcyclist
safety, both nationally and internationally. They
should initiate fundamental discussions with their
governments to jointly choose measures aimed
at actually, and preferably substantially, reducing
the crash rates of motorized two-wheelers.
1 6 S W O V • A D V A N C I N G S U S T A I N A B L E S A F E T Y I N B R I E F
Decentralization
Since the end of the 1980s, government has
become increasingly decentralized in the
Netherlands. Drawing up, determining and implementing
policy in various areas has now become
the responsibility of regional and local governments.
This also applies to road safety.
Regional governments can determine and implement
road safety measures independently and
introduce custom-made changes to their own
region. In addition, people have come to realize
that governments are not the only important
players in road safety policy. Social organizations,
interest groups, and the private sector such as
the car industry, garage trade, insurance industry,
driving schools and haulage and other companies
together determine what happens in road transport.
Finally, the Dutch 'lump sum' financing of
regional and local traffic and transport policy calls
for integration of road safety policy with other
traffic and transport projects.
Implementing Sustainable Safety has therefore
become much more complex in recent years and
it is becoming ever more dependent on regional
governments and social organizations. In fact,
there is now a network that weaves its way
throughout society and decision-making.
Is decentralization consistent with
uniformity?
This new administrative context in the Netherlands
would seem to be at odds with one of the
premises of Sustainable Safety, i.e. uniformity.
However, decentralized implementation of road
safety as part of an integral area-focussed
approach certainly does not exclude uniformity.
There are many other sectors where uniform
standards and decentralized responsibility go
hand in hand, for example the construction
industry. But it is important that when formulating
the uniform policy measures, use is made of the
knowledge of decentralized governments and
other sectors. This knowledge is necessary to
optimally align the uniform package of measures
to specific circumstances. This requires the
development of safety measures in cooperation
with regional and local governments. In the case
of Sustainable Safety this can be achieved by letting
regional and local governments look for allies
by making additional agreements with provinces
and/or other municipalities, for example. In all
situations, stringent demands should be made
on directing this interaction in order to ensure
progress and quality.
Away games for Sustainable Safety
In the Netherlands, Sustainable Safety measures
will be increasingly achieved within a broader
traffic and transport policy. Road safety policy will
be less and less exclusively its own policy area.
This makes interaction with and knowledge of
other policy areas inevitable and this broadening
offers new opportunities. For example, we can
reap the benefits by linking Sustainable Safety
with spatial planning. In other words, Sustainable
Safety will play fewer 'home games' and more
'away games'.
Away games do not make implementing
Sustainable Safety any easier; we have to be
present in the arenas of traffic and transport
policy as well as urban planning. What is more,
we have to ensure that we stand strong in the
areas that are new to us to allow us to negotiate.
Knowledge about cost-benefit studies could be
useful here. At the same time, the support of
forums such as regional consultative road safety
bodies is indispensable.
Integration of Sustainable
Safety in other policy areas:
difficult but essential.
Organization of
policy implementation
The Dutch administrative and policy environment in which road safety measures are implemented
has changed radically since Sustainable Safety was launched in the early 1990s. The new
administrative context partly determines whether the ambitions of Sustainable Safety can be
achieved in the future. Therefore, a reconsideration of the implementation strategies is called for.
Because of the fierce competition, a company
only invests in safety if there is a legal obligation
to do so, or if it is profitable for the company
itself, and will improve its competitiveness, not
damage it.
Road safety may suffer from the logistic pressure
that is sometimes imposed on drivers. Both the
haulage companies and their commissioners, the
shippers, have a responsibility in this. Shippers
can also impose safety requirements on haulage
companies. Certifying haulage companies, as is
already the case in Dutch bus companies, is
another possibility for improving safety.
Because of the decentralization of the Dutch
government, more independent actors are
responsible for the planning and design of the
road traffic system. In the perspective of the
Sustainable Safety vision, these actors should
formulate and implement a coherent policy. A
good example is presenting a recognizable road
layout to the road user; this promotes the predictability
of the road course and the behaviour
of other road users. Predictability can only be
achieved if all road authorities agree or are made
to agree on a certain degree of uniformity. At the
moment there are actually no safeguards for
achieving uniformity.
A safeguard is desirable, certainly when road
safety becomes an increasing part of other policy
areas. The decision process does not guarantee
that the correct road safety knowledge or vested
interests are properly considered. Considering
the complex decision-making and the attempts
to compromise, there is a probability that too
much water will be added to the road safety
wine.
Revolutionary?
The proposal for a quality assurance system
seems revolutionary in the Dutch 'world of road
safety' because it is a new concept for road
traffic, unlike the transport of dangerous goods.
However, there are many other policy areas and
organizations in which something similar already
exists. Examples are aviation, railways and public
health.
SWOV recommends that such a quality assurance
system is first initiated for road authorities. For
example, there can be expertise requirements for
personnel, careful procedures for planning preparation
and implementation, guidelines for road
design, assessment procedures and analyses of
crashes and near misses. Although this will not
result in major changes, a quality assurance system
does make clear to all those involved, both
within and outside road traffic, that quality is not
optional. It is certainly not intended to restrict the
autonomous authority of parties. It is intended to
ensure that the quality assurance is anchored,
not only within one's own organization, but that it
is even more firmly positioned and coordinated
with the help of a supervisor, for example.
Fitting in with existing inspection
Advancing Sustainable Safety advocates starting
with four issues in the Netherlands:
• obliging the minister to annually account for
both the crash and casualty numbers and the
processes within lower governmental bodies;
• carrying out road safety audits;
• reporting the road safety effects of major
investments in road infrastructure e.g. as part
of an Environmental Impact Assessment;
• revising current Dutch road design guidelines
and recommendations in such a way that
they can be used for the quality assurance
advocated here.
If a small step is taken first, the organization of it
all can fit in with the existing Inspection of the
Dutch Ministry of Transport.
Quality assurance
The Dutch administration is going through many changes which certainly offer opportunities
to the implementation of Sustainable Safety. For the fine-tuning of its various components,
however, an important link in the chain is still missing: quality assurance.
S W O V • A D V A N C I N G S U S T A I N A B L E S A F E T Y I N B R I E F 1 7
The line-up of players
In which positions should the various Dutch
governments play in away games?
The central government should play the role of
'policy innovator'. Additional policy innovations
must be possible and also encouraged. Special
attention should be paid to specific themes and
integration with other policy areas. The directing
role can be excellently combined with a function
in research and knowledge dissemination. This
task is made to measure for the central government,
in view of its current role. In this policy
development, knowledge institutes can fulfil a
helpful role.
The role of the regional governments resembles
the spider in its web. They fulfil a directing role
in the implementation of Sustainable Safety,
especially in the distribution of the funds made
available by the central government. This requires
definite and transparent choices between
the various vested interests and, of course,
'road safety' will be part of these integral con-
siderations.
The role of the local governments is one of
integral harmony with inhabitants and other
governments. Local politics can play a
stimulating and active role between the (latent)
demand of the population for greater safety and
the concrete implementation of Sustainable
Safety.
With or without ideological motives, social organizations
are 'the constant itch' which ensures that
actors are kept on their toes. Social organizations
can connect Sustainable Safety with other
social developments (sustainable society, environment
and liveability, etc.). The Sustainable
Safety vision offers the possibility of getting
attention paid to a sustainable society that
promotes the quality of life.
1 8 S W O V • A D V A N C I N G S U S T A I N A B L E S A F E T Y I N B R I E F
Financing road safety measures, also those of
Sustainable Safety, is a matter that continues to
require attention as there are currently insufficient
funds to cover all needs. Since the introduction
of a special traffic and transport fund known as
the broad goal-oriented grant (BDU), the budget
for road safety measures is no longer earmarked
as such and there is no longer any structural
financing.
Sustainable Safety investments:
robust!
But is the claim for Sustainable Safety investments
realistic? Or is it just a pet notion of the road
safety lobby? In 1992, the Netherlands Bureau
for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB) joined other
planning organizations to assess all claims. The
proposals for the Sustainable Safety investments
were found to be one of the few 'robust' ones:
the investments are socially cost-effective and
are part of the government's task.
In spite of this favourable judgement, the money
has not yet become available. In its exploration of
financing possibilities, SWOV limited itself to
investments in the infrastructure, in particular the
regional and local infrastructure. These investments
are extremely relevant for a sustainably
safe road traffic system. It is a well-known fact
that the needs for financing such infrastructural
measures are great and that the money available
is shortcoming.
Are other financing sources
available?
Three possibilities for financing the regional
infrastructural road safety measures were
studied:
• broadening the liability for crash damage;
• pricing road use;
• enlarging existing budgets.
The purpose of the first possibility, broadening the
liability for crash damage, is to charge the liable
parties with a greater proportion of the costs
caused by road crashes. Here we are aiming
mainly at the immaterial costs. Such a broadening
of liability could lead to a rise in cost of third party
insurance policies. A considerable share of the
proceeds from these damage claims should be
deposited in a 'Road Death Prevention Fund'.
Realisation of such a proposal requires new
legislation. In the short term therefore, this option
will not lead to extra money to finance the
regional sustainably safe infrastructure.
The second possibility, pricing road use, passes
on the costs of construction and maintenance,
including those of safety provisions, to the individual
road user. This kind of 'kilometre charge'
aims to make the user of a facility pay, taking
the rate of use into account. Some kind of road
pricing would appear to be a more efficient way
of financing the infrastructure than the current
methods. It is also suitable for financing a sustainably
safe layout of the regional road network.
However, if parliament decides that this system
may not cost more than the present system,
there will be no extra money for Sustainable
Safety measures in the short term.
The third financing possibility studied is enlarging
existing budgets. In this proposal SWOV examined
if financing would be possible by raising the
present traffic taxes or by spending their proceeds
differently. For example, a one or two
eurocent tax increase per litre of fuel could be
used for this. The state's contribution to the
broad goal-oriented grant could also be raised at
the expense of the Multi-Year Programme for
Infrastructure and Transport. Yet another way is
Financing
Many billion Euros are needed to implement Sustainable Safety in the Netherlands. Even if this
is done gradually over 20 to 30 years, large annual amounts are needed. SWOV has studied
three possible ways to finance implementation. In the short term the main source will lie in the
deliberate and political choice to free more money from existing budgets.
S W O V • A D V A N C I N G S U S T A I N A B L E S A F E T Y I N B R I E F 1 9
Integration
Road safety is becoming an increasingly integral
issue. Three goals are central in the Dutch
Mobility Paper: improved accessibility, cleaner
and safer. Many instruments, measures and
interventions will constantly need to be examined
in the light of these three goals. Once these
considerations have been made, designing and
managing a more integral policy will become
more important for promoting road safety in the
future. But integration with other policy goals
and policy areas is difficult to accomplish. It
does not come automatically and this subject
deserves more specific attention than it currently
receives.
Innovation
The Dutch Mobility Paper announces that central
frameworks will be defined to allow national interests
to interlace with decentralized traffic and
transport policy, and here also road safety is
mentioned specifically. Therefore here too, policy
innovation (monitoring, benchmarking and, if
necessary, adjustment) is needed.
Policy innovation should be a permanent process
because we cannot simply continue to do the
things we have done in the past. New and probably
unorthodox measures are needed to make
traffic sustainably safer. This requires several
large steps or perhaps numerous smaller ones.
How can we take them?
Policy innovation does not come automatically
but should be stimulated. SWOV proposes
allotting this innovational role to the Dutch
Ministry of Transport.
Research and development
Greater efficiency in implementing existing measures
remains an important subject for the coming
years. So far our experiences with the implementation
of Sustainable Safety have not provided us
with knowledge in a much structural way. This
makes it more difficult for us to take the next
steps in the right direction. We can only implement
existing measures better if we are prepared
to invest in knowledge: what has been implemented,
how has it been implemented and how
much has it cost? In other words: Research and
development.
Another argument in favour of research and development
regards the concretization and elaboration
of the possible measures in the advanced
Sustainable Safety vision. A great deal of knowledge
is also needed here that is not available
and will have to be gathered.
Knowledge dissemination
The last of this quadruplet, knowledge dissemination,
needs no argument; there is no point in
having new knowledge if it is not distributed. The
current methods of knowledge dissemination
could be more coherent in order to reach road
safety professionals in a qualitatively good and
efficient way. More focus on education is required
to achieve this. SWOV finally recommends using
Sustainable Safety as a means of communicating
information about road safety to citizens and
road users. This will result in more social recognition
for road safety, more widespread familiarity
with Sustainable Safety principles and support
for concrete measures.
Crucial
The above-mentioned components are crucial
for the successful implementation of the various
Sustainable Safety measures.
Accompanying policy
The implementation of Sustainably Safe will proceed better and more easily if, besides the
actual implementation, attention is paid to four other subjects. These collectively cover the
term 'accompanying policy': integration, innovation, research and development and knowledge
dissemination.
Research and
development
Knowledge
dissemination
Integration
Implementation
Innovation
Figure 5. The four components of accompanying policy as addition to the core: policy
implementation.
to use the yield of traffic fines for investments in
the infrastructure. These possibilities require a
political review for which the Social and Cultural
Planning Office of the Netherlands and the Social
and Economic Council of the Netherlands (SER)
have offered various arguments.
A new committee at work
SWOV concludes that there are currently too few
resources to finance a sustainably safe regional
and local road network. This is also the case for
roads which are the responsibility of a different
road authority. A separate 'Financing a Sustainably
Safe Infrastructure' committee should be given
the task to further elaborate the proposals.
In the short term, the best result is to be expected
from altering the priority of existing budgets
and/or a modest fuel tax increase. In the longer
term, more funds can be generated by road
pricing and extra income can be generated by
broadening the liability for material and immaterial
damage. However, there is still a long way to go
in the decision-making process before these
proposals are put into practice.
The advanced vision
in brief
Advancing
Sustainable Safety
National Road Safety Exploration
for 2005-2020
SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research
During the presentation in Leiden, various SWOV
speakers introduced the guests to the advanced
Sustainable Safety vision. Fred Wegman, SWOV's
managing director, emphasized that the elaboration
of complex questions in a complex context
requires a great deal from those involved.
Political will provides indispensable encouragement
in this. Everyone involved must continue on
the road already started and not avoid new possibilities
and challenges.
In her reply, the Minister of Transport said she
was pleased with the advanced Sustainable
Safety vision. She is greatly concerned about
road safety; new measures and initiatives are
still essential. We must not forget that the 881
road deaths in the Netherlands in 2004 are the
equivalent of 18 busloads of children, parents,
partners, relatives and friends. Everybody's
efforts and creativity are welcome in order to
further reduce this number. She felt that she had
a great deal of support in political debates from
the strong argument that there is no single more
socially beneficial measure than a road safety
measure.
Advancing Sustainable Safety lays the foundation
for further improving road safety and proposes
various possibilities to do so. Implementation
requires effort, initiative and cooperation.
Launch of ‘Advancing Sustainable Safety’
2 0 S W O V • A D V A N C I N G S U S T A I N A B L E S A F E T Y I N B R I E F
by mid-2006:
www.sustainablesafety.nl
The Dutch Minister of Transport Karla Peijs (third from the left) and representatives
from the police, provinces, municipalities and interest groups are presented with
the first copy of the Dutch edition of Advancing Sustainable Safety, by Fred
Wegman, managing director of SWOV (on the left).
Sustainable Safety is a successful vision for safer road traffic. However, in spite of all its success,
it was beginning to show signs of wear and tear. The latest insights have since been processed
and incorporated in the updated Advancing Sustainable Safety vision. On 2 November 2005,
the Dutch Minister of Transport and representatives from the police, provinces, municipalities
and interest groups were presented with the first copy of the Dutch version of the book. An
English version of this book will be published mid-2006 and will also be called Advancing
Sustainable Safety.
2603024_SWOV_Sustainable Safety.qxd 29-03-2006 11:26 Pagina 20