Why Sweden rules in road safety

To paraphrase a classic quote, the Swedes are different from you and me. They have more money, yes, but they also have more sense. At a recent annual traffic-safety conference called Lifesavers, we listened to a presentation by Roger Johansson, who has the wonderful title of Chief Strategist, Traffic Safety, for the Swedish Road Administration. This organization is roughly analogous to our Department of Transportation.

Making good better
At the Chicago event, Johansson outlined how Sweden, which already had one of the safest road systems in the world, set out to make it safer. And it seems to be succeeding. For instance, they have reduced traffic deaths among children younger than 15 years old from over 100 in the 1970s to fewer than 10 per year nationwide since 2004.

Johansson speaks with quiet calm and European charm. One of his key messages: "If what we are doing isn't working, then maybe doing more of it won't get us very far. So maybe let's try some things that are radically new." Starting 10 years ago, Sweden embarked on a program called Vision Zero, which combined conventional approaches such as speeding and drunk-driving crackdowns.

The idea of Vision Zero is not zero crashes, but rather zero fatalities and serious injuries.

A key tenet of this approach: "It's not the accident that kills--it's the kinetic energy. The biomechanical tolerance of human tissue is the limiting factor for the road transport system." But people do not perceive kinetic energy, or the energy of motion. What to do? Separate people from sources of kinetic energy.

How Sweden addresses this challenge:

• Separate pedestrians from the roadway. Sidewalks shouldn't be next to the pavement. Separate them with fences or bushes or other barriers so pedestrians don't wander into the road, and vehicles don't venture onto the sidewalk.
• Get rid of traffic lights wherever possible. "Traffic-light intersections are a safety catastrophe," says Johansson. Wherever possible, roundabout intersections are to be used.
• The worst kind of highway is straight, wide and flat, with no barriers. Such roads encourage speeding, lane-change crashes, and head-on collisions. Instead, guard rails are placed between opposing lanes and along road sides wherever possible.
• Slow the traffic in urban and suburban areas. Use traffic-calming techniques, such as narrow, gently curving roads separated by median strips.
• Rate roadways on a four-star scale for the inherent safety of their design. Now in place across most of Europe, roads or stretches of roads are therefore rated according to their risk. National maps or lists of rated roads are available on the Web, under the aegis of an organization called EuroRAP, the European Road Assessment Program.

Applying an ethics-driven approach:

• Ultimate responsibility rests with system designers. Don't blame just road users for traffic deaths. Is the roadway designed to be safe for its users? And are automobiles designed to protect their occupants?
• Road users are also responsible for following the traffic rules. They need to be educated about what they have the right to expect in safety and protection from the car and the road it travels on, so they can make rational choices.
• Children and pedestrians and some passengers are "involuntary road users." It can never be ethically acceptable to put those people at risk.
• Who needs traffic safety education? Not the kids. Government-funded traffic safety education for children. Instead, put the money into educating parents, school staff, and traffic engineers.
• It is up to parents and society to provide a safe environment, such as bicycle lanes, bike helmets, and child seats in cars.

--Gordon Hard

Comments

[Mike Hammock]

Two points on this topic:
1) Zero deaths should not necessarily be the goal of road safety policy, just as zero pollution should not be the goal of pollution control policy, and zero dirt and dust is not the goal of my carpet vacuuming policy at home. The point should not be to achieve perfect safety, but to achieve safety such that the marginal benefits equal the marginal costs. Make roads safer until it is too costly to make additional improvements, relative to the safety benefits these improvements provide.
2) Some of these changes in road design sound as though they will reduce the speed at which traffic can flow. To some extent it might make sense to exploit this trade-off of traffic volume for safety, but at some point the trade-off becomes too costly. There is actually a benefit in being able to drive from one place to another very quickly, and that benefit may exceed the costs in increased risk, at least in some cases.

[James Drouin]

I have spent approx 15 years living and driving in countries where there are a LOT of roundabouts and if anyone or any organisation, repeat anyone or any organisation, believes they prevent accidents, their observational skills are sorely lacking.

[Sunspot]

I don't think roundabouts prevent accidents, but they prevent severe, head-on collisions, which are the most deadly. You get a lot of sideswipe accidents in roundabouts, but the relative velocities involved are pretty low - typically under 15mph. Most modern cars have no trouble at all absorbing that much energy and keeping the occupants from serious harm.

Whereas in a head on or t-bone collision at a traditional traffic light intersection, the velocities can be anywhere from 35mph up to 90mph.

[IFCAR]

By the logic that slower speeds equal less-severe accidents, we might as well put speed bumps on the interstate in the interest of saving lives.

[Jeff Newfeld]

Sunspot -- you're bang on. Roundabouts are specifically designed to reduce / eliminate fatalities, not accidents. I haven't seen a study on efficiency, but it sure feels more efficient to me: Rather than stop-and-go as you wait to get through a light, you slow down but keep moving.

I have a roundabout near my home. Going through it in a car feels OK, if a bit slow. Going through it on a motorcycle, bike or on foot feels MUCH safer, as the traffic just isn't going as fast.

[Sanjaya Varma]

The comments on roundabouts are logical. Problem with these are in places such as India where traffic generally does not maintain lane discipline and so merging traffic at the entry points to the roundabouts create traffic bottlenecks / conflict.

[Mike]

Leading the way again - the Swedes.

[kent]

I'm curious about Mike Hammock's assertion that the benefit of moving from one place to another quickly may offset the risks of injury or death.

1) What are some examples?

2) Who makes the risk/benefit analyses, and when?

[kent]

RE: Sunspot's proposal to "put speedbumps on the interstate."

Faulty syllogism aside, I think you missed the point:
- The "traffic slowing" devices were not proposed for highway but for urban driving scenarios.
- The Swedes' _highway_ proposals included devices to keep fast moving vehicles apart: guardrails everywhere, to keep traffic cars on their own side of the road.

I've driven many miles on the autobahns in Germany, which are largely constrained by the kind of guard-rail system Mr Johanssen described. I can assure you that there was no noticeable diminution in driving speeds.

And "traffic calming" designs are becoming part of city planning guidelines all over -- including right here in my town of 40,000+. The city, with support from various planning agencies, chose to upgrade a downtown intersection from 4-way stop signs to a roundabout. Traffic flow and safety studies convinced the planners that the roundabout was both safer and more efficient than traffic signals.

[Marlen]

I recently moved from New York to Stockholm and now a bit scared to drive.And you know why?Pedestrians are so confident in safe driving that they don't even look to the sides when they cross the road,no matter if there is a traffic light and it's green for drivers,they just don't look and step right in front of your car whithout any doubt you are going to stop.Yeah,all swedes are definetly beleive in safe drivers!

[Laslo]

On one hand I agree with restrictions in urban areas and on rural roads, but there are some factors that experts quite often encounter in connection with motorways.I have driven a vast number of kilometers/miles in several countries of Europe and America, and have to admit that, I usualy exceed the limit on motorways if road/weather/traffic conditions make it possible, but solely on motorways! I have noticed 3 things: 1. in Europe most drivers do not keep to the limit (mostly 130 km/h), but drive around 160 km/h so there is no point in setting up ridiculus limits on motorways such as 100 km/h because emissions regulations e.g. in Austria on some motorways if nobody obeys those. 2. most drivers, who speed under normal conditions slow down and obey the limits at construction areas, where it is signposted, while others, who keep under normal conditions to the limit maintain their previous speed not to loose time because of their low avarage speeds, and these drivers for the same reason also do not stop to rest and fall asleep more often causing sever accidents. Higher speeds keep drivers more alert, because of the essential elevated concentration!3. where there is no limit on motorways like in Germany traffic flows almost at the same speeds as in other countries with the exception that while at other countries speedtraps and police cars continously grab the attention of drivers, therefore loosing concentration on the most important thing, driving, on german motorways they can concentrate on the traffic, causing less stress situations!
Safety is very important and has to be a top goal, but regulators should not loose out of sight the most important function of motorways: connecting countries and crucial points over long distances.This is the key: a low limit e.g. 110-130 km/h is ok on short distances, but if you travel over long distances for example 700 or 1000 kilometers there is quite a difference in time spent on travelling, e.g. at constant 130km/h, 1000km takes 7.7 hours of driving, while at 160km/h it is just 6.5 km/h, but at 100 km/h it takes 10 hours. The difference is quite large 3.5 hours, I have to emphasize that this is avarage speed without stopping, this 3.5 hours can be the difference between awakeness and falling into sleep on the road a key safety hazard!Dynamic limits should be applied, restricting speed when it is dangerous, but enabling the possibly fastest flow of traffic under normal conditions!

[Vince]

I find it curious that no mention appears to have been made on what I believe is a most important aspect to Sweden's excellent safety record. Sweden has a BAC (blood alcohol content) limit of 0.02; the lowest legal limit of any country. Furthermore they enforce their drunk driving laws very effectively.

[Vince]

I find it curious that no mention appears to have been made on what I believe is a most important aspect to Sweden's excellent safety record. Sweden has a BAC (blood alcohol content) limit of 0.02; the lowest legal limit of any country. Furthermore they enforce their drunk driving laws very effectively.

[Kvitka]

Would be interesting to know how many km of guardrails are used in Sweden? What are the tendencies and main company- consumers?