Jim Langford Oct 05

Austroads Safe System: 

Jim Langford Monash University Accident Research Centre 19 October 2005 Austroads Safe System

What is being replaced?: 

What is being replaced? Collections of individual programs. For example: the 10-Point Plan - speeding; - drink-driving; - seatbelts. Haddon’s Matrix

Features of previous strategies: 

Features of previous strategies 1.Solve the problem by eliminating the cause “90% of crashes are caused by the nut behind the wheel” The main target is therefore obvious Hence the preponderance of education-cum-enforcement countermeasures

Features of previous strategies: 

Features of previous strategies 2. Strategies were reactive Almost by definition, there needed to be a problem in the first instance (… and yes, there were exceptions) As a specific instance: the frequent use of Benefit-cost ratios in fixing priorities

Features of previous strategies: 

Features of previous strategies 3. ‘Blame the road user’ The perceived problem – an idiot driver crashing into a pole; The response - too often, blame the idiot driver! Let’s return to this later

Haddon’s Matrix was an outstanding success: 

Haddon’s Matrix was an outstanding success 1965 1982

The next step forward: 

The next step forward The need for a quantum shift are to meet national road safety targets: 9.3 fatalities per 100,000 pop in 1993 5.6 fatalities per 100,000 pop in 2010 HENCE THE SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH

Whence the crash reductions?: 

Whence the crash reductions? Source of Australia’s target reduction by 2010: safer roads 48%; safer vehicles 25%; safer road users 23%; new technology 5%.

What is the Safe System approach?: 

What is the Safe System approach? The short answer: It is pretty much all that Claes has been describing for Sweden And that is not coincidental … …

Safer roads: 

Safer roads improved risk analysis of the road network including but not restricted to crash performance; identification of the most effective treatments including those offered by ITS; review of current safety standards (including speed limits, clear zones and roadside hazard control) to develop safety benchmarks for new works, remedial treatments. Predominantly a proactive approach

Safer vehicles: 

Safer vehicles especially through improved marketing of vehicles with high safety ratings: promotion of vehicle crashworthiness ratings to the general public; the development of safer fleet vehicle purchase policies.

Safer speeds: 

Safer speeds Speed and road conditions interact such that: a protective road infrastructure will allow higher speeds; a poor road infrastructure will require either: - road improvements; or - reduced speeds, especially in treating high-risk sections of the road network where there are no immediate engineering options

Safer road users: 

Safer road users Passive: the interaction of safer roads, vehicles and speeds will result in protected – and safer – road users; Active: road users need to take responsibility – in obeying the rules, knowledgeable about safety implications of their actions.

Safer road users - Why the emphasis on passive safety features?: 

Safer road users - Why the emphasis on passive safety features? human behaviour does not readily change, many road safety attempts notwithstanding. “Motivation, attention, emotion, observation, prediction, knowledge and skills are all weaknesses that prevent the human from being the ideal traffic participant” (van Vliet & Schermers, 2000:p9). humans are largely unpredictable and most safety efforts that aim to eliminate unsafe behaviours by directly targeting road users, cannot be sustained over the long term.

Re-structuring the road user problem: 

Re-structuring the road user problem Scenario – a driver crashes into a telephone pole The ‘old’ question: why did that bloody idiot crash into the pole?

Re-structuring the road user problem: 

Re-structuring the road user problem Scenario – a driver crashes into a telephone pole The ‘old’ question: why did that bloody idiot crash into the pole? The additional ‘new’ question: what bloody idiot put that pole there to be crashed into?

An unsafe system: 

An unsafe system ‘A stupid system’ may be unfair but: Drink driving - but pubs with car parks Speeding - but fast cars … and so marketed; Vehicle incompatibility – subsidize the purchase of 4WDs (and don’t miss the pedestrians); Seatbelts – the solution is there but hampered to implement; etc.

An unsafe system: 

An unsafe system … but certainly it is unsafe. if all road users complied totally with all road rules, fatalities would fall by around 50 per cent and injuries by 30 per cent; under optimum conditions therefore, around one-half of fatalities and 70 per cent of injuries would remain. Elvik R (1997).

Safe System targets: 

Safe System targets The challenge is to ensure that: no fatalities will occur; serious injuries will be reduced. To be achieved mainly by safer management of vehicles, the road infrastructure and speeds to minimise the probability of death as a consequence of a road crash.

Status of Safe System: 

Status of Safe System It is still predominantly a document – but with some level of commitment from all jurisdictions It requires implementation especially at jurisdictional levels In the meantime, it has been accompanied by some national efforts … …

Example 1 of a Safe System program - speed: 

Example 1 of a Safe System program - speed Speeds currently set using an engineering/driver choice philosophy Road and roadside features and development; Driver choice – 85th %ile travel speeds The result: Australia has amongst the highest (especially urban) speed limits in the world

Australian and international speed limits: 

Australian and international speed limits

Austroad Project: Balance Between Harm Reduction and Mobility in Setting Speed Limits : 

Austroad Project: Balance Between Harm Reduction and Mobility in Setting Speed Limits Aim to develop, trial and evaluate a new system for setting speed limits based on harm reduction principles. Different speed philosophies being considered: Economic optimisation model; Harm reduction model

Austroad Project: Balance Between Harm Reduction and Mobility in Setting Speed Limits: 

Austroad Project: Balance Between Harm Reduction and Mobility in Setting Speed Limits Work still in progress but a likely model: Lowered default speed limits for different road types; Variations (higher or lower) depending especially on the risk factors along each road or road section

Austroad Project: Balance Between Harm Reduction and Mobility in Setting Speed Limits: 

Austroad Project: Balance Between Harm Reduction and Mobility in Setting Speed Limits A major challenge: Perceived public opposition to further reductions in speed limits, both urban and rural; Opposition led particularly by the automobile associations. A staged introduction … perhaps urban speeds

Example 2 of a Safe System program - roads: 

Example 2 of a Safe System program - roads Existing road network currently improved mainly by blackspot programs in various forms: at a specific site or section of road; along a route with high crash numbers; area-wide, encompassing a collection of roads and streets that collectively have high crash numbers; through mass action, whereby a known remedy is applied to a wide spread of locations with common crash problems.

AusRAP: 

AusRAP Assessment of a road’s safety status Two standard protocols: risk mapping of casualty crashes a star rating based on a road protection score Two measures of risk Risk pertaining to the road Risk pertaining to the individual driver

AusRAP: 

AusRAP Origin: In Australia, the automobile clubs – with support from Austroads and the jurisdictions Based on EuroRAP, parallels with NCAP Status – underway: risk mapping has occurred for rural sections of the National Highway in all jurisdictions but Tasmania

A mop-up: 

A mop-up The situation before Safe System Some key features of the Safe System A couple of national programs representing the Safe System philosophy

Slide32: 

Questions?