Modern societies are adapting road transport for the most vulnerable, says Fred Wegman, Managing Director of the Institute for Road Safety Research in the Netherlands, but policymakers are not doing enough. New technologies, aging populations, and even climate change could help.
 | The Law of the RoadIf this Chinese policeman is hit by a car doing 50km/h he has a 50-50 chance of living. If the car is doing 30km/h his odds improve to 95 percent (Photo: Reuters) |
Why do societies accept the carnage on their roads?
We started 100 years ago with an existing road infrastructure and the only change we made was adapting it for motorized vehicles. Air and rail transport are designed from a safety perspective. That is not the case with roads. The only exception is the motorway system.
We are making progress. Compare the risk per kilometer driven now compared with 50 years ago and there is a dramatic decrease. But the road system is still inherently risky.
Politicians don’t see how to change things. It costs money and you have to take space away from motorized traffic. That is a political choice. Road safety is acknowledged but in actual decision making it is not very prominent or transparent. I would like to force decision makers to reveal what choices they make at the expense of road safety.
You teach traffic safety as a science. Sciences have laws. What are the laws of road safety?
We have a few. The danger of traffic lies in the speed, differences in mass between road users, and people’s physical vulnerability. Large mass and/or speed differences emphasize the vulnerability differences between the various types of road user.
Road safety is all about getting rid of the kinetic energy generated by speed and mass. Based on the laws of biomechanics, we can better ‘organize’ a crash—manage speed and mass to protect the human body—and so minimize the risk of severe injuries or fatalities.
Take a collision between a car and a pedestrian. If that car is traveling at 50km/h there is a 50 percent chance the pedestrian will be killed. But if the same car is traveling at 30km/h the risk is reduced to 5 percent.
Pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists are the road users most likely to be killed or injured. How can we protect them?
There are various solutions. First, give them their own space. Introduce sidewalks pedestrians can use. Segregate fast moving motorized vehicles and cyclists. In Kuala Lumpur, there are even roads for motorized two wheelers where no other motorized transport is allowed.
Where pedestrians or cyclists do encounter motorized vehicles, we have to slow down motorized traffic to a maximum of 30 km/h, with raised zebra crossings for example, and make crystal clear who has priority. In the Netherlands, we have T-junctions where cars must wait to turn because pedestrians have priority.
 | Fred Wegman, Managing Director, Institute for Road Safety Research"I don’t believe in a vehicle without a driver. I believe we have to help the driver make safe decisions" |
A third area is the design of a vehicle. Part of the crash energy can be taken by the front-end of a car, rather than by the pedestrian, by using foam materials or material that buckles under pressure, absorbing the impact energy.
What impact will aging populations have on road safety?
A car hitting an elderly person will cause more severe injuries than the same car hitting a younger person so one aspect of a graying society is that authorities must organize the road system to prevent these accidents.
Many elderly people travel by bike or by foot because it is good for their health. We have to give them their own space when planning the road transport system.
Another aspect of aging populations is that elderly people have more problems making complex decisions in a short time. We have to make decisions easier.
In Europe, turning a vehicle left is a complex movement. You have to take into account people coming from the rear, from the right and left, and the oncoming traffic. Elderly drivers have serious problems turning left and we have to support them with better road design and technology.
What’s the best way to reduce accident levels involving young drivers?
We favor activities that provide more experience for young drivers in controlled conditions, such as “accompanied driving” schemes now in France, Sweden, and Austria. Novice drivers who have just passed their test are only allowed to drive accompanied by an experienced driver.
In Australia, New Zealand, and some American states and Canadian provinces they introduced graduated license systems. For example, young drivers might not be allowed to drive at night or drive with people of the same age.
Why not eliminate human error or violations with driverless vehicles, seat belt and alcohol interlocks, and other devices?
I don’t believe in a vehicle without a driver. I believe we have to help the driver make safe decisions: For example, road markings before a bend painted closer and closer to each other to suggest to the driver he is going faster and faster and should therefore slow down.
However, you can’t always trust the driver to do the right thing. Take the few people who still refuse to wear seat belts. The last step could be an interlock where you can’t start the car before putting on a seat belt.
Interlocks reduce dependence on police enforcement and we know there are countries where you can’t rely on police enforcement. But people may not accept you limiting individual freedom.
Then you have the problem where manufacturers become legally responsible for failsafe systems, and they refuse because there is too much risk that people will sue. I can see real automation only in the longer term.
How will climate change and energy security concerns affect road safety? Could reduced road haulage make roads safer?
I expect that to happen. In the Netherlands we are thinking about changing the delivery system of trucks in city centers because of air pollution. The impact might be that we don’t have big trucks close to vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists.
One key element would be a constant speed instead of continually accelerating and decelerating. That would be good for energy consumption, good for the environment, and good for safety.
I am optimistic that this could be a win-win situation. Modern societies are asking for more quality and less risk, they are encouraging cyclists and pedestrians to use public space for energy, environment and health reasons, and these are the driving forces behind road safety improvements.
editor: James Tulloch
publishing date: April 29, 2009
Do you have something interesting to add? Write a comment and discuss this topic with other readers. Comments should be on-topic, non-commercial, and not contain abuse of any kind.
Comment Policy
