Unit 7: Safe System Approach to Traffic Management
Module 7-1
The Safe System Approach
Traffic Management Training Module
20
Today’s presenter
David M. Levinson
Professor of Transport
University of Sydney
E: [Link]@[Link]
2
Roads have been getting safer
Bet Roads have been getting safer
over time in most countries
ter,
but
AU
Reasons include
not Better emergency medicine
Faster response times (mobile
NZ
goo phones)
de Safer vehicle design for
nou
occupants
More rigorous enforcement
ghUS
NZ
Better driver regulation
Safer road design
AU
DE More attentive drivers?
NO
NL
UK
SW
2020
Adapted from: Austroads Guide to Road Safety Part 1: Road Safety Overview Figure 3.2: Road
3
fatalities per 100 000 population in Australia, New Zealand and selected OECD countries 1975–2010
What is The Safe System Approach
“At the heart of the Towards Zero [Deaths and Injuries]
vision is the belief that no one should be killed or
seriously injured from using the road network. The
aim of Towards Zero is for a world free from road
fatalities and serious injuries and the vision is
underpinned by the Safe System approach to road
safety.”
4
Source: [Link]
Principles of The Safe System Approach
People are Humans are
fallible fragile
Road safety Build a safe
is a shared and forgiving
responsibility road system
5
Source: [Link]
Human Fallibility
People by nature will make mistakes (even
when they are not being irresponsible).
When these mistakes occur on the road, they
can lead to crashes.
Road trauma cannot be eradicated just by
improving road user behaviour.
Safe road system must accommodate and
account for people making mistakes.
Photo by David Levinson
6
[Link]
Human Vulnerability
The human body has a limited physical ability to
tolerate crash forces
The human body is vulnerable not built to withstand
impact forces greater than 30km/h – any impact
greater than 30km/h greatly increases the risk of dying.
Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, scooter riders,
and others not in a metal cage are referred to as
“vulnerable road users”, and are most at risk of
sustaining injury in the event of a crash.
A vehicle can absorb some of the crash forces protect
the occupant, the speed before the risk of death is
lower than people think.
Source: [Link] Figure 2: [Link] 7
Road Safety is a Shared Responsibility
In no particular order:
the whole community of road users,
Traditionally, the responsibility for staying safe on the road agencies,
road fell on individual road users. specific groups of road users and the
associations that represent them,
In the Safe System approach, road safety is a shared
the police and justice sector,
responsibility. Everyone has a part to play in keeping vehicle manufacturers,
ourselves and each other safe on the roads. employers of road users,
parents and schools,
planners and designers,
health care professionals,
governments that allocate funding to road
safety programs and health services,
the insurance industry.
8
Source: [Link]
Post-Crash Care
Building a safe and Safe People
forgiving road system Safe Vehicles
A safe road system that is forgiving of mistakes
Safe Roads
must have:
• Safe Speeds, Safe Speeds
• Safe Roads,
• Safe Vehicles,
• Safe People, and
• Post-Crash Care
Layered protection around people keeps them
safe from death and serious injuries on the road.
If one part of the system fails, the other parts will
still protect people.
9
[Link] Based on Figure 1: [Link]
Conventional vs. Safe System Approaches
Conventional Safe System
What is the problem? Accidents Fatalities and Serious Injuries
What causes the
problem?
Speeding, drink driving, inattention, deliberate risk taking System Failures
Who is ultimately
responsible?
Individual road users System designers and operators
What is the major A systemic approach to build a safe road system and minimise
Incremental approach to reduce residual crashes
planning approach? the harm
What is the “Optimum number of fatalities and serious injuries” based on
appropriate goal? competing objectives
Virtual elimination of death and serious injuries
What is the trade-off? A balance between mobility and safety Maximising safe mobility
How is the effort Incremental gain within individual pillars (roads / speeds / Optimise solutions across pillars (roads / speeds / vehicles /
coordinated? vehicles / people) people) – pillars compensate for each other
What are the cultural Experimental: Risk assessment, innovation, trials and
Legal liability avoidance and risk aversion
manifestations? demonstrations
Source: Austroads AP-560-18 Table 2.6: Differences between the conventional and Vision Zero approach to road safety. Adapted from Swedish Transport
Administration. (2015). Dr. Matts Ake-Belin [Powerpoint slides] and Austroads
For more information, See the Safe System Assessment Framework on the Austroads website 10
The effect of a small travel speed change on injury
A small change in travel speed
↓
A relatively large change in perception/reaction time and braking and
stopping distance
↓
A much larger change in impact speed
↓
A still larger change in impact energy
↓
A very large change in probability of death and serious injury
Adapted from: Austroads AP-560-18 p.29 11
Stopping distance as a function of reaction time
and braking on a wet sealed pavement surface
Reaction Distance Braking Distance
12
Source: Austroads AP-560-18 Figure 4.2: Stopping distance as a function of reaction time and braking on a wet
sealed pavement surface
Wramborg Curves:
Generally accepted threshold speeds
Relationships between collision
speed and probability of a fatality
for different crash configurations.
While 30 km/h is
higher than typical
pedestrian or
“According to these probability bicycle speed, most
curves, there is a 10% chance of cyclists operate in
fatality outcome when vehicles speed environments
impact at the following speeds: well above 30 km/h,
and pedestrians
30 km/h in pedestrian/cyclist
cross streets where
crashes that is the typical
50 km/h in side impact motor vehicle
collisions speed.
70 km/h in head-on
collisions.” (Jurewicz et al.
2015) Source: Jurewicz, Sobhani et al. (2015) and based on Wramborg (2005)
13
Safe System Speeds
Often referred to as the Safe System Speeds, the following aspirational
operating speeds are as follows (ECMT, 2006):
30 km/h - Where there is the possibility of a collision between a vulnerable
road user and a passenger vehicle
50 km/h - Where there is the possibility of a right angle collision between
passenger vehicles
70 km/h - Where there is the possibility of a head on collision between
passenger vehicles
≥100 km/h – where this is not possible side or frontal impact between Source: Antony
vehicles or impacts with vulnerable road user impacts. [Link]. (2020, June
16). Wikimedia
(Rural roads typically operated at 100 km/h. Limited access roadways (like
Commons, the free
freeways or motorways) typically operate at speeds higher than 100 km/h.) Source: Antony [Link].
media repository.
(2020, June 16). Wikimedia
Commons, the free media
14
repository.
Difference in
deformation
striking a solid
object at 60 km/h
and 100 km/h
Source: Austroads AP-560-18 Figure 4.5: Difference in deformation striking a solid object at 60 km/h and 15
100 km/h
Six different road
environments all with
a 100 km/h speed limit
Note: 100km/h is the default rural speed limit in most
jurisdictions, and more often than not it won’t be
‘signed’ as 100km/h.
Roads with a speed greater than 100km/h typically
refer to freeways (motorways).
16
Source: Austroads AP-560-18 Figure 4.6: Six different road environments all with a 100 km/h
speed limit
Eliciting desired speeds
Road Elements Accelerators Ease of modification
(intuitively
Decelerators
elicit a high (intuitively elicit a
speed)
lower speed)
Tangents
(Gentle (long) vs. torturous Long Short very low
(short) curves.)
Physical speed limiters
(e.g. speed humps, chokers, Not present Present high
other traffic calming devices)
Openness of the situation Wide and Narrow and closed
(e.g. trees, buildings abutting open road medium
roads vs. fields) surrounding road surrounding
Road width Wide Narrow medium
Road surface Smooth Rough low
17
Based on Austroads AP-560-18 Table 3.1 Road Infrastructure elements and their influence on speed
Perceived vs. Actual Risk in terms of Energy
Transfer
People understand the risk a
high drop presents to them
— falling off a cliff transfers a
lot of energy from the earth
to the person falling.
People often underestimate
the risk a head on crash
imposes.
18
By: Karl Jilg. Source: Claes Tingvall, Swedish By: Karl Jilg. Source: Claes Tingvall, Swedish
Roads Administration Roads Administration
Rethinking Design
19
By: Karl Jilg. Source: Claes Tingvall, Swedish Roads Administration By: Karl Jilg. Source: Claes Tingvall, Swedish Roads Administration
Examples of innovative roundabout design
Roundabouts reduce approach speeds, reduce number of conflict points, and angle of approach.
Signalised Roundabout (UK) Hamburger Roundabout (USA) Source: http:// Flower Roundabout Concept
[Link]/publications/research/safety/ (Slovenia). Source: Tollazzi,
09060/006. cfm Renceli et al. 2011
Mini roundabout (UK). Source: https://
[Link]/r/CitiesSkylines/
comments /30f5na/
traffic_circle_vs_roundabout_and_why 20
_cs_needs/ Turbo Roundabout (The Netherlands) C Roundabout (NZ). Source:
Asmus, Campbell et al. 2012
Roundabout Designs for Pedestrians and Bicyclists
Many roundabouts don’t consider pedestrians or bicyclists as well as they could. Here are some alternatives.
The Hovenring is an elevated bicycle path roundabout between Eindhoven and Best-practice protected bikeway roundabout
Veldhoven, Netherlands. Photo source: Huffington Post design. Source: Massachusetts Separated
Bikeway Design Guide.
21
The Safe System Approach
“The Safe System (otherwise known as Vision Zero, Towards
Zero, or Sustainable Safety) views human life and health as
paramount to all else and should be the first and foremost
consideration when designing a road network.”
22
[Link]
Conclusions: Safe Speeds, Safe Roads, Safe
Vehicles, Safe People, and Post-Crash Care
Humans are fallible Lower speeds reduce
Humans are vulnerable • the likelihood of impact, mistakes are
Road safety is a shared responsibility correctable (speed influences
perception-reaction time)
This requires collaborative leadership
among the many actors involved. • the consequences of impact
The road system must be safe and There are numerous strategies, policies,
forgiving and physical designs to reduce speeds and
do other things to achieve a safe transport
system.
23
Questions
24
Question 1
Who is responsible for road safety?
• Drivers
• Bicyclists
• Engineers
• Law Enforcement
25
Answer 1
Who is responsible for road safety?
• Drivers
• Bicyclists
• Engineers
• Law Enforcement
All of the Above and Others
26
Question 2
How many deaths per year are tolerable to save 1 minute of travel time for 50000 vehicles per day?
• 0
• 1
• 2
• 3
27
Answer 2
How many deaths per year are tolerable to save 1 minute of travel time for 50000 vehicles per day?
• 0
• 1
• 2
• 3
28
Question 3
Why is it important to keep speeds low?
29
Answer 3
Why is it important to keep speeds low
Both because:
• It reduces the likelihood of a collision
• It reduces the consequences of a collision
30
Austroads report
Some of the information
from this presentation is Research Report Research Report
AP-R509-16 AP-R560-18
conveyed in the Research
Report
Austroads Reports: Safe
AP-
System Assessment R560-18
Framework and Towards
Safe System
Infrastructure
These reports can be Safe System Assessment Framework
Towards Safe System Infrastructure
A Compendium of Current Knowledge
downloaded from Towards Safe System Infrastructure
Austroads Website: A Compendium of Current Knowledge
[Link]
Austroads Research Report AP-R509-16 Austroads Research Report AP-R560-18 31
Safe System Assessment Framework Towards Safe System Infrastructure: A
Compendium of Current Knowledge
References
Jurewicz, C., Sobhani, A., Woolley, J., Dutschke, J., & Corben, B. (2016). Exploration of vehicle
impact speed–injury severity relationships for application in safer road design. Transportation
research procedia, 14, 4247-4256.
32
