Search

Policy measures in the field of road safety are not easily implemented for several reasons. Interventions can be undertaken in a multitude of policy areas, but it is often uncertain how effective the measures are. Moreover, policymakers may be reluctant to implement road safety policy measures because of the expected high costs and/or perceived low public support. To understand the arguments used against policy measures for road safety, a survey was conducted in ten countries (China, the United States, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Austria, Sweden, Greece, France, Nigeria, and Argentina). Respondents were presented with ten possible road safety measures and asked whether they would support or oppose them, what arguments their opinion was based on, and what the consequence of the measure would be on them individually. This paper describes the main findings of the research and then zooms in on three counterarguments: restriction of mobility, discrimination, and unjustifiability of state interventions, as well as on three of the measures considered—compulsory use of ISA systems, mandatory cycle helmets, and screening of older motorists. With this research, previous results on the level of public support have been confirmed, and new insights have been gained. If people feel safe when using a particular transport mode, they are less conscious of the need for additional or stricter measures affecting their transport mode. The perceived restriction of human liberties, fear of discrimination, and resistance to state interventions fuel opposition against measures. Moreover, people from different countries vary in what they consider fair and unfair, which is linked to the national culture and social organization. Even if a measure was perceived to be unfair from a certain perspective (e.g., discrimination), some respondents supported the measure. Our research also illustrates that even people who recognize that a measure would be effective might oppose it because they think it is not justified from at least one perspective, for instance, an excessive restriction of freedom.

Policy measures in the field of road safety are not easily implemented for several reasons. Interventions can be undertaken in a multitude of policy areas, but it is often uncertain how effective the measures are. Moreover, policymakers may be reluctant to implement road safety policy measures because of the expected high costs and/or perceived low public support. To understand the arguments used against policy measures for road safety, a survey was conducted in ten countries (China, the United States, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Austria, Sweden, Greece, France, Nigeria, and Argentina). Respondents were presented with ten possible road safety measures and asked whether they would support or oppose them, what arguments their opinion was based on, and what the consequence of the measure would be on them individually. This paper describes the main findings of the research and then zooms in on three counterarguments: restriction of mobility, discrimination, and unjustifiability of state interventions, as well as on three of the measures considered—compulsory use of ISA systems, mandatory cycle helmets, and screening of older motorists. With this research, previous results on the level of public support have been confirmed, and new insights have been gained. If people feel safe when using a particular transport mode, they are less conscious of the need for additional or stricter measures affecting their transport mode. The perceived restriction of human liberties, fear of discrimination, and resistance to state interventions fuel opposition against measures. Moreover, people from different countries vary in what they consider fair and unfair, which is linked to the national culture and social organization. Even if a measure was perceived to be unfair from a certain perspective (e.g., discrimination), some respondents supported the measure. Our research also illustrates that even people who recognize that a measure would be effective might oppose it because they think it is not justified from at least one perspective, for instance, an excessive restriction of freedom. • Women are more supportive of road safety measures than men. • People who feel safe when using a particular transport mode are less supportive of additional measures affecting that mode. • Perceived restriction of freedom, fear of discrimination, and resistance to state intervention fuel opposition to measures. • "Difficult to implement" is seen as the most relevant counterargument, followed by "Will not reduce injuries." • People from different countries vary in what they consider to be fair and unfair. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are considerable differences between countries when it comes to road safety performance, as indicated by the number of road fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants. These discrepancies are strongly associated with differences in wealth and prosperity, as expected, but are also related to national culture. The overall objective of this exploratory study is to identify relationships between national culture, road safety performance and public support for policy measures. Using the revised version of Hofstede's cultural dimensions, we show the strong correlation between national culture and road safety performance, which exists even after controlling for the national level of wealth as measured by the gross national income. Furthermore, by combining the national cultural dimensions with data on 29 countries from the second stage of ESRA, the E-Survey of Road users' Attitudes, this study demonstrates that culture also affects the level of public support for policy measures related to road safety. Specifically, for many measures, the degree of individualism accounts for a considerable part of the statistical variation in the public support for policy measures across countries—except for those measures for which the support is very high in most countries. Possible explanations are given for the seemingly paradoxical finding that countries which witness high resistance to road safety policy measures have nevertheless managed to achieve better road safety performance.

There are considerable differences between countries when it comes to road safety performance, as indicated by the number of road fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants. These discrepancies are strongly associated with differences in wealth and prosperity, as expected, but are also related to national culture. The overall objective of this exploratory study is to identify relationships between national culture, road safety performance and public support for policy measures. Using the revised version of Hofstede's cultural dimensions, we show the strong correlation between national culture and road safety performance, which exists even after controlling for the national level of wealth as measured by the gross national income. Furthermore, by combining the national cultural dimensions with data on 29 countries from the second stage of ESRA, the E -Survey of Road users' Attitudes, this study demonstrates that culture also affects the level of public support for policy measures related to road safety. Specifically, for many measures, the degree of individualism accounts for a considerable part of the statistical variation in the public support for policy measures across countries—except for those measures for which the support is very high in most countries. Possible explanations are given for the seemingly paradoxical finding that countries which witness high resistance to road safety policy measures have nevertheless managed to achieve better road safety performance. • National culture is strongly correlated with road safety performance. • ESRA data show considerable differences between countries in support for road safety policy measures. • The higher the level of individualism in a country, the fewer the road traffic fatalities. • Support for new policy measures in road safety is lower in countries with a higher degree of individualism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]