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

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

Evaluations of Speed Camera Interventions Can Deliver a Wide Range of Outcomes: Causes and Policy Implications

Speeding (travelling at speeds above the speed limit) is proven to be a major contributor to serious crashes, and speed management interventions including speed cameras are shown to reduce speeds, crashes, and trauma. However, the present review identifies that the range of outcomes reported in evaluations of speed cameras is large, complicating the understanding of effects, and inviting scepticism about the value of speed cameras despite the large numbers of reported successes, as well as systematic reviews and meta-analyses that demonstrate their life- and injury-saving value. Therefore, this review is focused on the factors that contribute to the large range of findings, including reasons for genuine differences in the outcomes delivered by different camera programs and variations in evaluation methodology that influence the extent to which real benefits are detected. Finally, recommendations are offered to maximise the safety benefits of speed-camera programs (including ensuring the full chain of requirements for general deterrence is met; strong communications about new programs and expansions at least several weeks in advance of implementation; and unpredictability of enforcement versus signposted cameras) and to improve evaluation methods (especially around determining the road lengths/locations assumed to be treated by the cameras and use of control locations)

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

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

Creation and validation of a tool to measure the real population risk of speeding

Abstract Speeding is a significant contributor to the road toll. The risks associated with speeding at high and low levels are well understood, as are a range of speed management programs such as speed limits and speed cameras. Speed surveys have been used to help quantify the population distribution of speeding and to evaluate the impact of road safety interventions, especially since crashes are, statistically, rare events. Crash-based evaluations necessarily take time and are subject to high levels of random variation. In contrast, speed surveys can potentially be used to demonstrate the immediate impact of road safety interventions. The results of speed surveys are available long before the associated crash data has been collected and analysed. However, the achieved changes in the distribution of vehicle speeds need to be translated into changes in the likely number and severity of crashes

The effects of training impulse control on simulated driving

International audienceThere is growing interest in young driver training that addresses age-related factors, including incompletely developed impulse control. Two studies investigated whether training of response inhibition can reduce risky simulated driving in young drivers (aged 16-24 years). Each study manipulated aspects of response inhibition training then assessed transfer of training using simulated driving measures including speeding, risky passing, and compliance with traffic controls. Study 1 (n = 65) used a Go/No-go task, Stop Signal Task and a Collision Detection Task. Designed to promote engagement, learning, and transfer, training tasks were driving-relevant and adaptive (i.e. difficulty increased as performance improved), included performance feedback, and were distributed over five days. Control participants completed matching "filler" tasks. Performance on trained tasks improved with training, but there was no significant improvement in simulated driving. Study 2 enhanced response inhibition training using Go/No-go and SST tasks, with clearer performance feedback, and 10 days of training. Control participants completed testing only, in order to avoid any possibility of training response inhibition in the filler tasks. Again performance on trained tasks improved, but there was no evidence of transfer of training to simulated driving. These findings suggest that although training of sufficient interest and duration can improve response inhibition task performance, a training schedule that is likely to be acceptable to the public does not result in improvements in simulated driving. Further research is needed to investigate whether response inhibition training can improve risky driving in the context of real-world motivations for risky driving

THE NEW SOUTH WALES INTELLIGENT SPEED ADAPTATION TRIAL

ABSTRACT The New South Wales Centre for Road Safety is currently conducting the largest trial of Advisory Intelligent Speed Adaptation technology in Australia. More than 100 vehicles are participating in the trial which is being conducted in the Illawarra Region of the state. This trial is unique because each vehicle is connected to a centralised computer system which automatically updates changes to speed zones. The NSW ISA trial aims to: • Research the potential road safety benefits of advisory ISA systems in NSW. • Measure the economic effects in terms of fuel consumption and effects on travel time of installing ISA systems in NSW vehicles. • Assess the acceptability of ISA systems to drivers and managers using and administering private fleets and to drivers of private vehicles Already more than 2 million individual speed compliance records from trial vehicles have been collected as part of the project. Attitudinal and behavioural studies have also been conducted as part of the trial. Initial results of changes to speed zone compliance and the results of the in-vehicle behavioural observational study trial will be presented at the conference

AR and gamification concepts to reduce driver boredom and risk taking behaviours

Young males are over-represented in road crashes. Part of the problem is their proneness to boredom, a hardwired personality factor that can lead to risky driving. This paper presents a theoretical understanding of boredom in the driving context and demonstrates convincing arguments to investigate the role of boredom further. Specifically, this paper calls for the design of innovative technologies and applications that make safe driving more pleasurable and stimulating for young males, e.g., by applying gamification techniques. We propose two design concepts through the following questions: A. Can the simulation of risky driving reduce actual risky driving? B. Can the replacement of risky driving stimuli with alternative stimuli reduce risky driving? We argue that considering these questions in the future design of automotive user-interfaces and personal ubiquitous computing devices could effectively reduce risky driving behaviours among young males