The promise of a Safe Systems Approach

The obvious way to eliminate injuries and deaths from traffic crashes

Any new jargon will get hijacked, abused, distorted, twisted, or innocently misinterpreted through the phone game. There’s no stopping human nature. Sometimes it’s intentional, other times it’s the phone game phenomenon. 

The “safe system approach” to road safety is rooted in the principle that while mistakes may be inevitable, deaths and serious injuries are not. It’s how we can achieve Vision Zero.

The safe system approach aims to eliminate fatal and serious injuries for all road users by accommodating human mistakes and keeping impacts on the human body at tolerable levels. —US Dept of Transportation

And like any new or popular terminology, the meaning has been lost on some.

At any given time, there’s a state DOT running a marketing campaign about how a person walking has a shared responsibility for their own safety. These aren’t 1-in-a-100 campaigns that follow 99 things a person driving needs to do to keep people safe. Naturally, anyone familiar with the difference in harm caused by Motordom bristles at the DOT marketing. The campaigns are either vaguely victim-blaming or entirely victim-blaming.

Check out the whiplash on X from this recent campaign by Pennsylvania’s DOT.

But, these messaging disasters don’t mean the safe system approach is harmful or a waste of time. On the contrary, it’s a collection of things that are all important. Infrastructure planners and engineers are expected to use professional judgment in the application of ideas. They’re expected to prioritize based on the ultimate goal of eliminating preventable deaths and injuries. 

The human body has multiple systems (skeletal, muscular, nervous, etc.) working together to protect itself from harm. Our bones provide a structure to protect internal organs. Our skin acts to prevent infections. When one system fails (e.g., you trip on a sidewalk), others (like reflexes to catch oneself or the immune system to heal minor scrapes) mitigate harm. Redundancy and shared responsibility is built into our bodies. 

Our problem in the US isn’t that a contextual view of safety is problematic, it’s that decision makers continually (for decades!) prioritize high-speed/low-delay driving at the expense of human life. Safety is not the top priority for the vast majority of public transportation agencies. The proof is all around us.

The safe system approach is how these countries started to see dramatic results in their transportation programs. Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands will tell you systems-thinking is how they’ve become known as some of the safest places to get around. 

The Federal Highway Administration has been publishing resources for experts. And just like material for bike lanes, roundabouts, and road diets, the experts often have no idea these resources exist. It’s not fair that you’re in a position to have to educate them, but maybe you can think of it as your shared responsibility. 😉

Here’s one place to start: https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2022-06/FHWA_SafeSystem_Brochure_V9_508_200717.pdf