What if we handle road safety as general safety?

The hierarchy hazard controls is a de facto standard for determining which measures to take in the presence of risks. The principles can be (and I would argue that they should be) applied to road safety.

From the most effective to the least effective measure, we have:

  • Elimination: Avoid road trips. Of course it is rarely possible.

  • Substitution: Replace dangerous vehicles with non-hazardous vehicles. That is, cars should be limited

  • Engineering controls: people are isolated from risks: cycle paths, sidewalks everywhere, speed bumps, raised crossings, narrowing of the roads

  • Administrative controls: speed limits, 30 km/h cities, speed cameras, training courses.

And last and most definitely least:

  • personal protective equipment: they are the least effective, to be used only if there is no possibility of applying other measures: helmets.

Those who push for certain measures do not understand anything about safety, and thus would start from the bottom of the hierarchy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_hazard_controls

crossposted from: https://mastodon.uno/users/rivoluzioneurbanamobilita/statuses/113978193983638459

  • trufiassociation@lemmy.mlEnglish
    30·
    1 day ago

    In a 2023 study in the UK, people were more in favor of public policy to make people safer as long topic was something other than cars.

    …adults rated, at random, a set of statements about driving (“People shouldn’t drive in highly populated areas where other people have to breathe in the car fumes”) or a parallel set of statements with keywords changed to shift context (“People shouldn’t smoke in highly populated areas where other people have to breathe in the cigarette fumes”). Such context changes could radically alter responses (75% agreed with “People shouldn’t smoke…” but only 17% agreed with “People shouldn’t drive…”).

    https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJENVH.2023.135446>