Road traffic safety facts for kids

Sidewalks, curbs and traffic signals in Hagerstown, Maryland, United States

Speed limits in different areas, unusually with only a "recommended" limit (130 km/h) for the Autobahn

DRIP variable message sign guiding traffic on the Dutch A13 motorway

Vehicles experiencing a breakdown or an emergency can stop in the emergency lane; these lanes may themselves present risks to traffic.

Sacrifices to the Modern Moloch, a 1922 cartoon published in The New York Times, criticizing the apparent acceptance by society of increasing automobile-related fatalities

Road traffic safety refers to the methods and measures used to prevent road users from being killed or seriously injured. Typical road users include pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, vehicle passengers, and passengers of on-road public transport (mainly buses and trams).

Best practices in modern road safety strategy:

The basic strategy of a Safe System approach is to ensure that in the event of a crash, the impact energies remain below the threshold likely to produce either death or serious injury. This threshold will vary from crash scenario to crash scenario, depending upon the level of protection offered to the road users involved. For example, the chances of survival for an unprotected pedestrian hit by a vehicle diminish rapidly at speeds greater than 30 km/h, whereas for a properly restrained motor vehicle occupant the critical impact speed is 50 km/h (for side impact crashes) and 70 km/h (for head-on crashes).

—International Transport Forum, Towards Zero, Ambitious Road Safety Targets and the Safe System Approach, Executive Summary page 19

As sustainable solutions for classes of road safety have not been identified, particularly low-traffic rural and remote roads, a hierarchy of control should be applied, similar to classifications used to improve occupational safety and health. At the highest level is sustainable prevention of serious injury and death crashes, with sustainable requiring all key result areas to be considered. At the second level is real-time risk reduction, which involves providing users at severe risk with a specific warning to enable them to take mitigating action. The third level is about reducing the crash risk which involves applying the road-design standards and guidelines (such as from AASHTO), improving driver behavior and enforcement.

Traffic safety has been studied as a science for more than 75 years.

History

Roadways originally carried all sorts of traffic indiscriminately - beasts of burden as well as pedestrians. Road behavior and rules have developed to prioritize certain types of traffic.

Important people traversing crowded streets and alleys in ancient Rome (famous for its Roman roads) deployed minions to clear the way for their litters or (if allowed) carts and chariots. Even the mighty preferred not to trample the bystanders.

In the 19th century the advent of powered vehicles inspired British road-safety law to impose speed limits and to require a person on foot carrying a red flag warning of the arrival of a frightening noisy mechanical contrivance.

Subsequently, motoring lobby-groups pressed for the priority of motorized traffic, and safety laws drove playing children off the streets and ghettoized the likes of walkers, bicycles, wheel-chairs and scooters to the margins. Concepts like shared space, living streets and woonerven developed to counter this paradigm.

Pedestrians and cyclists

Pedestrians and cyclists are among the most vulnerable road users and in some countries constitute over half of all road deaths. Interventions aimed at improving safety of non-motorised users:

• Sidewalks (or pavements in British English) of suitable width for pedestrian traffic
• Pedestrian crossings close to the desire line which allow pedestrians to cross roads safely
• Segregated pedestrian routes and cycle lanes away from the main highway
• Overbridges (tend to be unpopular with pedestrians and cyclists due to additional distance and effort)
• Underpasses (these can pose heightened risk from crime if not designed well, can work for cyclists in some cases)
• Traffic calming and speed humps
• Low speed limits that are rigorously enforced, possibly by speed cameras
• Shared space schemes giving ownership of the road space and equal priority to all road users, regardless of mode of use
• Pedestrian barriers to prevent pedestrians crossing dangerous locations
• Cycling infrastructure
• Protected intersection

American passive traffic safety measures which were adopted in the mid-20th century created roadways which were forgiving to motorists traveling at high speeds but which de-prioritized cycling and pedestrian facilities. Passive traffic safety policies led to excessively wide streets, clear zones adjacent to roadways, wide turn radii and a focus on protecting drivers from the consequences of high speeds. Passive traffic safety measures sought to avoid influencing the behavior of drivers while giving automobiles maximum convenience. Recent complete street policies seek to create design-oriented traffic safety improvements which actively slow drivers down by narrowing roadways while better accommodating pedestrians and cyclists.

Pedestrians' advocates question the equitability of schemes if they impose extra time and effort on the pedestrian to remain safe from vehicles, for example overbridges with long slopes or steps up and down, underpasses with steps and addition possible risk of crime and at-grade crossings off the desired crossing line. Make Roads Safe was criticised in 2007 for proposing such features. Successful pedestrian schemes tend to avoid over-bridges and underpasses and instead use at-grade crossings (such as pedestrian crossings) close to the intended route. Successful cycling schemes by contrast avoid frequent stops even if some additional distance is involved, because cyclists expend more energy when starting off.

In Costa Rica 57% of road deaths are pedestrians. However, a partnership between AACR, Cosevi, MOPT and iRAP has proposed the construction of 190 km of pedestrian footpaths and 170 pedestrian crossings which could save over 9000 fatal or serious injuries over 20 years.

Safe from traffic for cycling along a fully segregated Fietspad, properly designed cycling infrastructure in Amsterdam

Animals

Collisions with animals are usually fatal to the animals, and occasionally to drivers as well.

Information campaigns

Annual traffic deaths sign over I-95 in Georgia, US, indicating more than three deaths per day

Information campaigns can be used to raise awareness of initiatives designed to reduce road casualty levels. Examples include:

• Think! encouraging use of seatbelts (UK 2000–present)
• Decade of Action by World Health Organization and Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (2011–2020)
• Traffic awareness campaigns such as the "one false move" campaign documented by Hillman et al.
• Speeding. No one thinks big of you. (New South Wales, Australia, 2007)
• Road Safety is no Accident World Health Organization
• Designated driver campaign, (US, 1970s-present)
• Click It or Ticket, (US, 1993–present)
• Clunk Click Every Trip (UK 1971)
• Green Cross Code (UK 1970–present)

Statistics

According to Eurostat, there is almost a linear proportion between the total number of passenger-km driven by car and road fatalities.

Car fatalities per pax-km vs. car usage per pax-day; in Europe. It seems, at least in these European countries, that car fatalities per person-km have no strong correlation with massification of car usage. The average car usage in these countries is around 30km per person-day with varying number of fatalities ratios. These differences might be related with different cultural approaches to traffic codes, or more safety measures implemented on such countries.

According to Eurostat and European Railway Agency, in European railway mode of transport, there is a fatality risk for passengers and occupants 28 times lower compared with car usage. Based on data by EU-27 member nations, 2008–2010.

Rating roads for safety

Since 1999 the EuroRAP initiative has been assessing major roads in Europe with a road protection score. This results in a star rating for roads based on how well its design would protect car occupants from being severely injured or killed if a head-on, run-off, or intersection crash occurs, with 4 stars representing a road with the best survivability features. The scheme states it has highlighted thousands of road sections across Europe where road-users are routinely maimed and killed for want of safety features, sometimes for little more than the cost of safety fencing or the paint required to improve road markings.

There are plans to extend the measurements to rate the probability of a collision for the road. These ratings are being used to inform planning and authorities' targets. For example, in Britain two-thirds of all road deaths happen on rural roads, which score badly when compared to the high quality motorway network; single carriageways claim 80% of rural deaths and serious injuries, while 40% of rural car occupant casualties are in cars that hit roadside objects, such as trees. Improvements in driver training and safety features for rural roads are hoped to reduce this statistic.

The number of designated traffic officers in the UK fell from 15 to 20% of police force strength in 1966 to seven per cent of force strength in 1998, and between 1999 and 2004 by 21%. It is an item of debate whether the reduction in traffic collisions per 100 million miles driven over this time has been due to robotic enforcement.

In the United States, roads are not government-rated, for media-releases and public knowledge on their actual safety features. [^unclear] However, in 2011, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Traffic Safety Facts found that over 800 persons were killed across the US by "non-fixed objects" that includes roadway debris. California had the highest number of total deaths from those crashes; New Mexico had a best chance for an individual to die from experiencing any vehicle-debris crash.

Killed or Seriously Injured statistics

According to WHO in 2010 it was estimated that 1.24 million people were killed worldwide and 50 million more were injured in motor vehicle collisions. Young adults aged between 15 and 44 years account for 59% of global road traffic deaths. Other key facts according to the WHO report are:

• Road traffic injuries are the leading cause of death among young people, aged 15–29 years.
• 91% of the world's fatalities on the roads occur in low-income and middle-income countries, even though these countries have approximately half of the world's vehicles.
• Half of those dying on the world's roads are "vulnerable road users": pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists.
• Without action, road traffic crashes are predicted to result in the deaths of around 1.9 million people annually by 2020.
• Only 28 countries, representing 416 million people (7% of the world's population), have adequate laws that address all five risk factors (speed, drunk-driving, helmets, seat-belts and child restraints).

It is estimated that motor vehicle collisions caused the death of around 60 million people during the 20th century, around the same number of World War II casualties.

As the comparatively poor improvements in pedestrian safety have become a concern at OECD level, the Joint Transport Research Centre of OECD and the International Transport Forum (JTRC) convened an international expert group and published a report entitled ”Pedestrian Safety, Urban Space and Health in 2012”.

According to BITRE/Australia agency changes in growth in population, vehicle registration, and estimated vehicle kilometres travelled have various impact on death trend from OECD countries.

KSI 2013

According to the OECD's International Transport Forum (ITF), in 2013 the key figures among their 37 member states and observer countries looked like the following:

Country	Deaths per 1 million inhabitants	Deaths per 10 billion vehicle-km	Deaths per 100 000 registered vehicles	Registered vehicles per 1 000 inhabitants	Seatbelt wearing rates Front (driver, passenger)/ Rear (adults, children)	speed limit urban / rural / motorways (km/h)
Argentina	123	n.a.	23	529	52%,45% / 19%,45%	30–60 / 110 / 130
Australia	51	50	7	751	97% / 96%	50, 60–80 / 100 or 110 / 110
Austria	54	58	8	710	89% / 77%	50 / 100 / 130
Belgium	65	71	10	627	86% / 63%,79%	30–50 / 70–90 / 120
Cambodia	143	n.a.	78	151	17% / n.a.	40 / 90 / n.a.
Canada	55	56	9	644	95% / 95% (estimated) (Metropolitan)	40–70 / 80–90 / 100–110
Chile	120	n.a.	50	237	62,78% / 15%	50 / 100–120 / 120
Czech Republic	62	157	11	560	97% / 66%	50 / 90 / 130
Denmark	34	39	6	523	94% / 81%	50 / 80 / 130 (110)
Finland	48	48	7	725	95% / 87%	50 / 80 (winter) 100 (summer) / 120 (100)
France	51	58	8	647	98% / 84%,90%	50 / 90 / 130 (110 bad w.)
Germany	41	46	6	651	96–98% / 97,98%	50 / 100 / no limit or 130
Greece	79	n.a.	11	726	77%,74% / 23%	50 / 90 (110) / 130 (110)
Hungary	60	n.a.	16	366	87% / 57%,90%	50 / 90 / 130 (110)
Iceland	47	47	6	830	84% / 65%	50 / 90 (80) / n.a.
Ireland	41	40	8	541	92% / 88%,91%	50 / 80 or 100 / 120
Israel	34	54	9	352	97% / 74%	50,70 / 80,90,100 / 110
Italy	57	n.a.	7	821	64%–76% / 10%	50 / 90–110 / 130 (110 bad w., 100 novice, 150)
Jamaica	122	n.a.	87	130	44% / very low (estimated)	50 / 50 / 70 or 110
Japan	40	69	6	657	96%,94% / 61%	40,50,60 / 50,60 / 100
Lithuania	87	n.a.	11	766	95% / 33%	50 / 90 (70) / 120 or 130 (110 in winter)
Luxembourg	84	n.a.	11	771	80% / n.a.	50 / 90 / 130 (110 in rain)
Malaysia	231	122	29	792	82%,68% / 9%	50 / 90 / 110
Morocco	116	n.a.	117	100	49%,46% / n.a.	50 / 100 / 120
Netherlands	34	45	5	537	97% / 82%	50 / 80 / 130
New Zealand	57	63	8	734	97% / 92%,93%	50 / 100 / 100
Norway	37	43	5	707	95% / 87–88%	30,50 / 80 / 90,100,110
Poland	87	n.a.	14	636	90% / 71%,89%	50 (60) / 90–120 / 140
Portugal	61	n.a.	11	551	96% / 77%,89-100%	50 / 90 / 120
Russia	124	201	35	353	n.a.	60 / 90 / 110 or 130
Serbia	71	n.a.	20	347	84% / 19%	50 / 80 / 130
Slovenia	61	72	10	638	94% / 66%,87-94%	50 / 90 (110) / 130
South Korea	101	172	23	450	89%,75% / 22% (on motorways)	60 / 60–80 / 110 (100)
Spain	36	n.a.	5	662	90% / 81%	50 / 90 or 100 / 120
Sweden	27	34	5	597	97% / 81%,95%	30,40,50 / 60,70,80,90,100 / 110 or 120
Switzerland	33	43	5	708	94%,93% / 77%,93%	50 / 80 / 120
United Kingdom	28	35	5	551	96% / 92%	48 / 96 or 113 / 113
United States	103	68	12	852	87% / 74%	set by state / set by state / 88–129 (set by state)

KSI 2020

According to the OECD's International Transport Forum (ITF)/IRTAD, in 2020 the key figures of 34 members among their 62 member states and observer countries looked like the following:

Country	Deaths per 1 million inhabitants 2018	Deaths per 10 billion vkm motorways 2018	Deaths per 10 billion vkm 2018	Deaths per 100 000 registered vehicles 2018	Registered vehicles per 1 000 inhabitants	Seatbelt wearing rates Front (driver, passenger)	Seatbelt wearing rates Rear (adults, children)	speed limit urban / rural / motorways (km/h) 2020	general BAC g/L	lower BAC g/L
Austria	46	10	49	6		97/98	96	50 / 100 / 130	0.5	0.1
Belgium (2017) (c)	53	24	59	8		95 (2017)	86 (2015)	30-50 / 70-90 / 120	0.5	0.2
Czech Republic	62	26	117	9		95 (2015)	95 (2015)	50 / 90 / 130	0.0	-
Denmark (2017) (c)	30	8	32 (or 31)	5		97 (2018)	93 (2019)	50 (sections with 30, 40 or 60) / 70, 80 (90 for specific sections) / 110, 130	0.5	-
Finland	43	6	47	5		95	87	30-60 / 80, 100 / 100, 120	0.5	-
France	50	22	54	7		99	86	50 / 80 with 90 sections / 110 on dual carriageways 130 (110 wet + novice)	0.5	0.2
Germany (c)	40	17	44	6		99	98.5	50 / 100 / None < (130 recommended)	0.3-0.5	0.0
Netherlands (2017) (b)	39	10	40 (or 49)	6		>95 (2010)	82 (2010)	30-50 / 60-80 / 100-130	0.5	0.2
Slovenia (2017)	44	25	49 (or 42)	6		95/96 (2018)	78 (adults 2018)	50 / 90 (110 on expressways) / 130 (110 on expressways)	0.5	0.0
Switzerland	27	8	34	4		96/95	77	50 / 80 / 120 (100 on expressways)	0.5	0.0
Great Britain / UK	28	10	33	5		99 drivers, 97 passengers (2017 for GB)	93 (2017 for GB)	48 (30 mph) 96, 113 (60, 70 mph) 113 (70 mph)	0.8 (England, Wales, Northern Ireland) 0.5 (Scotland)	-
Japan	33		56	5		99 drivers, 96 passenger	39	40, 50, 60 / 50, 60 / 100	0.3	-
USA	112		70	12		90.9 drivers, 89.8 passengers	76.1 (2018)	(see note) (see note) 88-129	0.8	0.0 - 0.4
(b) Real data (actual numbers instead of reported numbers by the police). (c) Mopeds are not included in the registered vehicles. VKM: vehicle-km In United-States, speed limit vary state by state

See also

In Spanish: Seguridad vial para niños