Improving Road Safety
in the OIC Member States
12
Three of these pillars are traditional elements of the road traffic system (roads, vehicles, users)
and are usually treated separately, often applying the 3 E’s: education, enforcement and
engineering. However, in two of the safest countries in the world, Sweden and the Netherlands,
it was realised that all of these elements (have to) work together as a system. The Swedish Vision
Zero (Tingvall & Haworth, 1999) and Dutch Sustainable Safety (Koomstra et al., 1992; Wegman
& Aarts, 2006) were the inspiration for the internationally accepted Safe Systems Approach.
In the OECD report “Towards Zero” (OECD, 2008) it is explained how this approach places the
road user as a central element in the system: roads, vehicles, legislation, etc. have to be tuned to
the strengths and weaknesses of the road user. Some of the human limitations are biophysical,
which implies that vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists should be separated
from motorised traffic. This idea brings about concepts such as the categorisation of the road
network, safe (i.e. low and credible) speeds where motorised and non-motorised road users
meet, airbags, ESC etc. Other limitations are of a more cognitive or psychological nature:
everybody makes mistakes; (too) many take risks occasionally or frequently. Preferably the
road design and safety culture will help prevent crashes (i.e. via self-explaining roads,
designated drivers, etc.) but in the end enforcement will be an inevitable road safety measure
that has to be integrated in the system.
Safe Systems Approach
It is evident from the above that there is no Safe Systems blueprint, hence it is called the Safe
Systems Approach. The underlying theory (i.e. the approach) is universally applicable but
putting Safe Systems thinking into practice requires local knowledge and consideration. In the
so-called SUNflower evaluation (Koomstra et al., 2002), countries with a comparable road safety
record were compared and benchmarked. This study compared Sweden, the UK and the
Netherlands (hence SUN). These countries were considered similar since all three were among
the safest traffic countries in the world, part of Europe and belonged to the high income group
of countries. However, the study revealed that not only were the problems different but also the
solutions. For example, the Netherlands is densely populated and has many cyclists, unlike
Sweden and the UK. What they did have in common was the evidence-based approach. A general
conclusion is that countries can learn from one another’s experiences but these cannot always
be copied and reproduced. Following the initial SUNflower study, an expanded benchmarking
study was conducted (Morsink et al., 2005). Also IRTAD is benchmarking ten Latin American
countries using the SUNflower-approach. All these studies compare the performances of
different countries and in this regard, attempt to identify stronger and weaker areas in road
safety management.
The UN Declaration encourages countries to implement integrated road safety strategies
targeting all five pillars. These strategies should be developed taking into account country
specific requirements, resources and capabilities.