1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

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

8. Starting point in Victoria
Flat-lining
Advocates for
Speed reduction
Vision Zero
Star ratings for roads
Strong speed
measures
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

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

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

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

12. 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 ( )
Focus on crash types
Understanding road safety as a “social issue”

13. 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

14. NSW achievements Road deaths reduced
by 6.5% ( )
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

15. Comparisons of Three States

16. 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

17. 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.

18. 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.