National Road Safety Strategy Update Joe Motha General Manager Safety Research and Education Australian Transport Safety Bureau

National Road Safety Strategy 2001 to 2010 ● “Our target is to achieve a 40% reduction in the number of fatalities per 100,000 population by 2010.” ● “Achieving this target will save about 3,600 lives over the next 10 years.”

No injury target? ● “The National Road Safety Strategy aims to dramatically reduce death and injury on Australian roads” – NRSS ●No quantitative injury target, because there was no reliable national injury database ●Expectation that planned measures would reduce both deaths and injuries

Injuries ●History of close correlation between trends for deaths and serious injuries

Derivation of target ●Based on realistic estimates of the effects of known measures – evidence – analysis – expert judgement ●Focus on measures likely to be feasible to implement and cost-effective ●Close to three-quarters of the expected safety improvement could be achieved without new initiatives: – continuation of road investment programs – ‘flow-through’ of vehicle safety improvements

2010 Target: indicative estimates of the effects of known measures Improve the safety of roads 19% New technology to reduce human error 2% Vehicle occupant protection 10% Road user behaviour 9% Remaining 2010 road fatalities 60% Estimates adjusted to allow for increase in vehicle use, and discounted to avoid ‘double-counting’ of savings

Our target is a 40% fatality rate reduction over 10 years ●After 4 years and 9 months of the 10-year strategy, where should we be?

Our target is a 40% fatality rate reduction over 10 years ●After 4 years and 9 months of the 10 year strategy, where should we be? – More than half way to that target: a reduction of 21.5%

Where should we be? NRSS TARGET Road deaths per population Dec-00Dec-01Dec-02Dec-03Dec-04Dec-05Dec-06Dec-07Dec-08Dec-09Dec-10 Deaths per population Target = 40% reduction 7.3 Linear 5% reduction per year

Where should we be? NRSS TARGET Road deaths per population Dec-00Dec-01Dec-02Dec-03Dec-04Dec-05Dec-06Dec-07Dec-08Dec-09Dec-10 Deaths per population Target = 40% reduction Pro-rata target = 7.3 (Sept 2005) 7.3 Cumulative reduction = 21.5%

Where are we? NRSS TARGET Road deaths per population Dec-00Dec-01Dec-02Dec-03Dec-04Dec-05Dec-06Dec-07Dec-08Dec-09Dec-10 Deaths per population 8.0 (Sept 2005) Target = 40% reduction Target = 7.3 (Sept 2005)

Where are we? NRSS TARGET Road deaths per population Dec-00Dec-01Dec-02Dec-03Dec-04Dec-05Dec-06Dec-07Dec-08Dec-09Dec-10 Deaths per population 8.0 (Sept 2005) Target = 40% reduction Targeted reduction = 21.5% 14.5% reduction to date Target = 7.3 (Sept 2005)

State and Territory data ●Comparing the last 24 months with rates for 1999 and 2000: – fatality rates have dropped in most jurisdictions – percentage reductions vary considerably – current rates vary between states (but there was more variation in the past) Fatalities per 100,000 population

Where are we? ●Average annual percentage reduction to meet target over 10 years: 5. 0% ●Average annual percentage reduction to date:3. 2% ●Cumulative reduction to date:14.5% ●Pro-rata target reduction:21.5% ●Reduction required over rest of decade:30% Dec-00Dec-01Dec-02Dec-03Dec-04Dec-05Dec-06Dec-07Dec-08Dec-09Dec-10

Action Plan 2005 and 2006 ● A recent examination of underlying assumptions provided no grounds for revising these broad expectations. ● However, it has become clear that some of the specific assumptions in the behavioural area were incorrect. – For example, it is now evident that the original estimation of future gains from speed measures was highly conservative this is borne out in both research-based evidence on the potential safety benefits of travel speed reductions…, and the large fatality reductions achieved in Victoria following the strengthening of compliance measures in 2001–02 – On the other hand, projected trauma reductions from improved compliance with drink driving and seat belt laws have so far not been realised.

Some possible problems ●Economic factors (exposure patterns) – Total vehicle use increasing faster than predicted – Unforseen increase in motorcycle usage – and fatalities

Increasing vehicle usage

Some possible problems ●Economic factors (exposure patterns) – Total vehicle use increasing faster than predicted – Unforseen increase in motorcycle usage – and fatalities ●‘Learning effects’ eroding impact of established enforcement programs  people learning when and where enforcement is likely (/unlikely)  offending without being caught can be a significant learning experience

Some possible problems ●Economic factors (exposure patterns) – Total vehicle use increasing faster than predicted – Unforseen increase in motorcycle usage – and fatalities ●‘Learning effects’ eroding impact of established enforcement programs  people learning when and where enforcement is likely (/unlikely)  offending without being caught can be a significant learning experience ●Increasing mobile phone use?

Some possible problems ●Economic factors (exposure patterns) – Total vehicle use increasing faster than predicted – Unforseen increase in motorcycle usage – and fatalities ●‘Learning effects’ eroding impact of established enforcement programs  people learning when and where enforcement is likely (/unlikely)  offending without being caught can be a significant learning experience ●Increasing mobile phone use? ●Underlying social factors (‘hurry sickness’, stress, anxiety, distraction) ?

Some possible problems ●Economic factors (exposure patterns) – Total vehicle use increasing faster than predicted – Unforseen increase in motorcycle usage – and fatalities ●‘Learning effects’ eroding impact of established enforcement programs  people learning when and where enforcement is likely (/unlikely)  offending without being caught can be a significant learning experience ●Increasing mobile phone use? ●Underlying social factors (‘hurry sickness’, stress, anxiety, distraction) ? ●Risk compensation

Some possible problems ●Economic factors (exposure patterns) – Total vehicle use increasing faster than predicted – Unforseen increase in motorcycle usage – and fatalities ●‘Learning effects’ eroding impact of established enforcement programs  people learning when and where enforcement is likely (/unlikely)  offending without being caught can be a significant learning experience ●Increasing mobile phone use? ●Underlying social factors (‘hurry sickness’, stress, anxiety, distraction) ? ●Risk compensation ●Statistical variability

Possible problems ●Things that would have been effective that have not yet been done? ●Knowing/doing gap?

Is the target still in range? ●Average annual percentage reduction to meet target over 10 years: 5. 0% ●Average annual percentage reduction to date:3. 2% ●Average annual percentage reduction required from now to 2010: 6.5% ● Total percentage reduction required from now to 2010: 30%

Is the target still in range? NRSS TARGET Road deaths per population Dec-00Dec-01Dec-02Dec-03Dec-04Dec-05Dec-06Dec-07Dec-08Dec-09Dec-10 Deaths per population Target = 40% reduction 3.2% per annum reduction so far 6.5% per annum reduction to reach target

Is the target still in range? NRSS TARGET Road deaths per population Dec-00Dec-01Dec-02Dec-03Dec-04Dec-05Dec-06Dec-07Dec-08Dec-09Dec-10 Deaths per population Target = 40% reduction 3.2% per annum reduction so far 30% reduction over 5 years

A reduction of 30% over 5 years? 6.5% per year? ●Average annual reduction: 1970 to 2004:3.9% 1994 to 2004:3.1% 1989 to 1999:5.6% Deaths per 100,000 population

A rate reduction of 30% over 5 years? ●Western Australia: January 1999 to January 2002: 31% reduction over three years ●Victoria: May 2002 to May % reduction over two years (based on running 12-month rates: deaths per 100,000 population)

A rate reduction of 30% over 5 years? ●What has happened in the past is a guide to what we can expect in the future – but unprecedented things can be made to happen.

A rate reduction of 30% over 5 years? ●Can we think of feasible measures that could achieve such an outcome? – If so, it is not yet time to give up.

External factors ●High fuel prices could mean – less travel (or at least, slower growth) – less discretionary/recreational travel – more market share for smaller vehicles – more use of public transport – substitution of mopeds and motorcycles for cars  – mix of positive and negative safety impacts

The target is important, but … ●We need to be looking beyond 2010 – preparing the way for major improvements in the long term – as well as short-term fixes.

National Road Safety Strategy 2001 to 2010 ● “Our target is to achieve a 40% reduction in the number of fatalities per 100,000 population by 2010.” ● “Achieving this target will save about 3,600 lives over the next 10 years.”

Cumulative target NRSS TARGET Road deaths per population Dec-00Dec-01Dec-02Dec-03Dec-04Dec-05Dec-06Dec-07Dec-08Dec-09Dec-10 Deaths per population Cumulative fatality reduction over 10 years: 3,600 – relative to a constant annual fatality count of 1,800 4,600 – relative to a constant annual fatality rate of

Cumulative target NRSS TARGET Road deaths per population Dec-00Dec-01Dec-02Dec-03Dec-04Dec-05Dec-06Dec-07Dec-08Dec-09Dec-10 Deaths per population Target = 40% reduction Target = 40% reduction Extra fatalities

Cumulative target NRSS TARGET Road deaths per population Dec-00Dec-01Dec-02Dec-03Dec-04Dec-05Dec-06Dec-07Dec-08Dec-09Dec-10 Deaths per population Target = 40% reduction Extra fatalities 6.5% per annum reduction to reach target

Is the cumulative target still in range? NRSS TARGET Road deaths per population Dec-00Dec-01Dec-02Dec-03Dec-04Dec-05Dec-06Dec-07Dec-08Dec-09Dec-10 Deaths per population Target = 40% reduction

Epilogue: Choice, responsibility and change ●Level of safety we achieve will depend on choice: the price we as a community are willing to pay, in terms of money and other ‘costs’: – Mobility, liberty, effort, will, inconvenience, discomfort, political risk etc ●Individual and collective responsibility  national safety culture ●A real challenge ahead!