Adoption of new technologies must be supported by such activities, or ‘Safe System levers’, which are so often forgotten about despite ironically being at the heart of what professional practitioners do on a daily basis (Job et al., 2022). Forward-thinking policy developments at the EU level on intelligent speed assistance (ISA) came about because of the robust dissemination of research, as well as economic modelling and appraisal to support the wider business case.
If we renew our efforts in employing such levers and apply a much more systemic lens to behaviour change within a Safe System, then we can once again turbo-charge the use of enforcement technologies to change hearts and minds for a safe road transport network.
Safety camera technologies and their widespread proliferation in the 1990s to late 2000s in the UK are a case in point. These were operationalised to great effect through newly formed local Safety Camera Partnerships (SCPs) and associated cost recovery programmes set up by the DfT (Department for Transport, 2003). This was capacity building at its best; where there was clear recognition that good government is not just about legislation and regulation (these are, of course, critical to better policy outcomes) but also leading through a sustained and strategic focus on the required people, material investment, and supporting levers to transform public health and well-being. This remains one of the clearest examples in the UK transport sector of systemic safety value being generated when leadership and co-ordination, appraisal, and investment are together leveraged to enact changes that are grounded in an evolving evidence base and policy feedback loop. The large-scale infrastructure deployments and establishment of supporting partnerships and funding apparatus have been transformative both as a collective process and as a suite of interventions in their own right. The benefits and legacy of these actions are clear – contributing to an emerging trend towards greater use of average speed enforcement (Owen et al., 2016).
Once fixed, mobile, and average speed camera enforcement technologies received Home Office Type Approval (HOTA) from the 1990s onwards, the number of cameras rapidly increased as DfT-led national evaluations fostered promising results (Gains et al., 2005). By 2007, when cost recovery funding for SCP enforcement ended, there were over 4,747 safety cameras in operation (Hansard, 2008). These technologies have yielded positive effects on collision and casualty severities as well as speed profiles (Soole et al., 2013). The extensive evidence base around these technologies in the UK has been a primary beneficiary of this central co-ordination, where local partners could confidently upscale their operations and fill knowledge gaps.
New technologies don’t succeed in a vacuum. This example serves as a reminder that the Safe System approach, the international benchmark of best practice, is as much about facilitation through those supporting levers (outer circle) as it is about the different components (middle circle) which together should be underpinned by core principles at the centre of system (Figure 1).
Figure 1: The Safe System
Successful interventions are those enabled by multiple Safe System levers – just as effectiveness is contingent on the use of a variety of behaviour change techniques (Michie et al., 2014). To derive strategic value from enforcement technology moving forward, we must better triangulate these levers with improved thinking around, and application of, behavioural measures; through a refreshed view as to what the Safe System really means for our modus operandi. Deeply ingrained tendencies centred on road user culpability for all safety outcomes still permeate current thinking (Job et al., 2022). To change this will require a critical re-examination of our priorities and whether widely used approaches match our growing recognition of the Safe System as the vehicle to deliver safe, sustainable, and equitable mobility.
As new technological capabilities in road transportation emerge, we risk being left behind the curve of market forces if we underestimate the potential for exponential growth - in which case, we will incur the inevitable consequences of inaction. The potential growth of connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs), micromobility modes, and mobility-as-a-service (MaaS) are all pressing examples, where stakeholders are scrambling to get ahead of the curve and push for the enactment of policies to regulate their development and safe operation. But to effectively nudge the road user, we must first nudge ourselves.
The Safe System approach is a behavioural mode of operation – organisations who fail to look inward before intervening outwardly risk ineffective strategies at best, and at worse, causing unintended harm. Other transport sectors like aviation take the systemic view before and after things go wrong – let’s do the same.
Safety is certainly a goal for professional practitioners, but this is not always so for the public who, despite seeing a safe network as beneficial, do not necessarily share the view that it should be a shared objective. Changing behaviour has traditionally meant simply communicating through broad publicity campaigns to ‘educate’ road users. We must now prioritise the more effective ‘hard’ behavioural measures – economic, environmental and legislative (Davies, 2022) and as we look to the need to renew enforcement as part of these efforts (Norbury, 2020) it is obvious that many technologies have transformative potential insofar as we better apply behavioural understanding through a systemic Safe System lens. It is time to move away from simple persuasion and information giving and use updated behavioural guidance (Fylan, 2017).
Enforcement innovations such as passive alcohol detection technologies (sensors that measure blood alcohol levels through touch) are really tapping into the upper levels of behaviour change hierarchies (‘built-in automatic detection’ above ‘require’ or ‘persuade’ functions etc.). Other innovations to tackle the fatal four (speeding, non-seatbelt wearing, handheld device use, drink/drug driving) show that this approach to enforcement is starting to gather momentum. Acusensus ‘heads up’ technology to tackle distracted driving has received regulatory approval in over half of Australia’s federal states; a result of direct co-ordination by responsible authorities and partners to support large-scale trials and buy in. Similarly, the Swedish Transport Administration has funded evaluation of the potential effects of speed-limiting geofencing and its measurable impacts on safety, health, and the environment – utilising connected vehicle capabilities (Nygårdhs et al., 2023). Safe System levers, novel data sources, and hard behavioural measures are a powerful mix – who would have thought?
Changing behaviour is not easy, especially when it comes to enforcement and the toolkits we use to achieve compliance. It is as much about looking at ourselves as it is the intrinsic behavioural pressure points around deterrence and automation. One thing is clear, enforcement technologies have delivered consistent co-benefits. The journey ahead will not always be smooth sailing, but we can create a more enabling environment through leadership once more. To get the most out of new and exciting innovations we must now be even bolder in building capacity for Safe System levers; more honest about the need to build sophisticated suites of behavioural measures that reflect what is most effective; and refresh our view of what we think we already know.
References
Agilysis. (2022). GB Road Safety Performance Index: Restoring Momentum, Improving Local Authority Road Safety Performance over the Next Decade.
Davies, D. (2022). 'It's Behaviour Change Jim, But Not As We Know It'. Retrieved from www.brake.org.uk: https://www.brake.org.uk/how-we-help/raising-awareness/our-current-projects/news-and-blogs/its-behaviour-change-jim-but-not-as-we-know-it
Department for Transport. (2003). A cost recovery system for speed and red-light cameras: two year pilot evaluation.
Fosdick, T., Campsall, D., Kamran, M., & Scott, S. (2024). Creating a Cultural Maturity Model to Assess Safe System Readiness Within Road Safety Organisations. Journal of Road Safety, 35(1), 52–64
Fylan, F. (2017). Using Behaviour Change Techniques: Guidance for the road safety community. RAC Foundation.
Gains, A., Nordstrom, M., Heydecker, B., & Shrewsbury, J. (2005). The national safety camera programme: Four-year evaluation report.
Hansard. (2008). House of Commons. Written Answers. Retrieved from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080506/text/80506w0005.htm#08050625000551
Job, R., Truong, J., & Sakashita, C. (2022). The Ultimate Safe System: Redefining the Safe System Approach for Road Safety. Sustainability, 14, 29-78.
Michie, S., Atkins, L., & West, R. (2014). The Behaviour Change Wheel: A Guide to Designing Interventions. Silverback Publishing.
Norbury, F. (2020). Roads policing and its contribution to road safety. PACTS.
Nygårdhs, S., Bhattacharyya, K., Gebrehiwot, R., Genell, A., Gustafsson, M., Olstam, J., Sjöblom, J., Svensson, N. and Vadeby, A. (2023). Evaluation of the potential effects of speed-limiting geofencing. VTI.
Owen, R., Allsop, R., & Ursachi, G. (2016). The Effectiveness of Average Speed Camera Enforcement in Great Britain. RAC Foundation.
Soole, D., Watson, B., & J, F. (2013). Effects of average speed enforcement on speed compliance and crashes: a literature review. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 46-56.
Stipdonk, H., Aarts, L., Campsall, D., Carnis, L., Feypell, V., Fosdick, T., Shelton, D., Small, M. and Vadeby, A., (2024). Maturity measurement in road traffic injury prevention. Traffic Safety Research, 8.
