Safe System – Comparisons of this approach in Australia Lori Mooren, Senior Research Associate Prof Raphael Grzebieta, Chair, Road Safety Dr Soames Job, Director, NSW Centre for Road Safety, Transport, NSW

Background to the Safe System American – Haddon Matrix – contributing factors and countermeasures (road user, vehicle, road environment)  Dutch - Sustainable Safety – no road system should be designed such that deaths can be predicted ✚ Swedish – Vision Zero – no-one should be seriously harmed from mistakes they make on the road Australian – Safe System – the design parametre of the road system is human tolerance to kinetic force

WA.10.2 Qld 7.3 SA 6.8 Vic 6.3 NSW Source: NSW Roads and Traffic Authority report to the National Road Safety Strategy Panel Meeting (September 2008) for the Road Safety Branch, Infrastructure and Surface Transport Policy, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. IRMRC

History of Australian road design heavily based on US codes History of Australian road design heavily based on US codes? Are AASHTO design guides relevant for today’s demands? ! European best practise road design may be more suitable.  14.2 ? ≈ 5.0 or less IRMRC

Key principles of Safe System Road traffic system to take into account human error and physical vulnerability to injury Road managers sharing responsibility for safety assurance rather than making it the road users’ responsibility to assure their own safety Placing a priority on safety above mobility

How did it come about? Concepts of Vision Zero pushed by MUARC Tingvall/Haworth (1999) Vision Zero – an ethical approach Community & political push-back Researchers publishing work on risks inherent in the road system & advocating a Vision Zero approach – eg: Job (1989) Traffic accidents are a political issue Murray (1994) When it comes to the crunch Rechnitzer/Grzebieta (2001) Crashworthy systems Grzebieta/Rechnitzer (2002) Designs for Death

Safe System implementation – in selected States – Vic, NSW, WA* * Selection based on available data

Starting point in Victoria Flat-lining Advocates for Speed reduction Vision Zero Star ratings for roads Strong speed measures 2001-2004 Adoption of Safe System – 2004 Australian road deaths – Grzebieta and Rechnitzer Possible long-term maximum travel speeds under Vision Zero (reproduced from Tingvall and Haworth

Adopted by ATC to underpin the National Strategy 2005-2006 Safe system model reproduced from Howard, 2004

Victoria’s Safe System achievements Good relative fatality reductions 3% reduction (2003-2008) $130m for safer road infrastructure Speed limit reductions, lower enforcement tolerances, more speed cameras Victoria’s fatality rate trend compared with the Australian average

Starting point in Western Australia Safe system – Strategic Plan 2003-2007 Little additional infrastructure investment Establishment of extensive and inclusive consultative and collaborative structures

WA’s Safe System achievements Initial shortfall in needed infrastructure investment Leveraging of $4.5 million from corporate sector with investment of $600k Modest initial reductions in road fatalities But overall a 3% increase in fatalities (2003-2008) Focus on crash types Understanding road safety as a “social issue”

Starting point in NSW In 2006 road safety declared one of top ten Government priorities Establishment of Centre for Road Safety and mainstream road safety in RTA Management systems for road safety Crash types and locations identified and treatments decided

NSW achievements Road deaths reduced by 6.5% (2003-2008) Major multi-disciplinary reviews of major routes and holistic system safety improvements Speed zoning guidelines tightened under Safe System principles Internal partnership between Centre for RS and Infrastructure Development

Comparisons of Three States

Discussion Different environments & different starting approaches Victoria and NSW focused on infrastructure and speed management, WA on building partnerships and institutional strengthening WA more ambitious in its goals, Vic and NSW embraced infrastructure elements more strongly WA partnering more externally, Vic and NSW more focused on internal partnership

Summary All three jurisdictions have made progress in differing ways. With different starting points and environments each has taken approaches that were most probably the paths of least resistance WA has worked on the important element of securing community support Vic and NSW have big challenges to secure community support, but have achieved internal support to make substantive system improvements.

Conclusions Community, political and stakeholder commitment will make or break the Safe System Sufficient financial investment is vital to refitting the road and traffic systems There are substantial challenges, including: Engaging the infrastructure engineering fraternity; Creating a community demand for Safe System; and Securing political commitment to the needed infrastructure investments.