IATSS Research 46 (2022) 3–13

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

IATSS Research

Review Paper

A conceptual framework for road traffic safety considering differences in

traffic culture through international comparison
Akinori Morimoto ⁎, Ailin Wang, Naohiro Kitano
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, School of Creative Science and Engineering, Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Many countries and international organizations have put a significant amount of effort into improving road traffic
Received 26 July 2021 safety by setting their own road traffic safety goals and strategies. This study aims to provide a conceptual frame-
Received in revised form 1 November 2021 work for road traffic safety through an international comparison of traffic safety goals and strategies. Such a com-
Accepted 25 November 2021
parison can help improve mutual understanding and communication among stakeholders in different countries
Available online 29 November 2021
and international organizations. Based on a review of previous traffic safety literature and comparing traffic
Keywords:
safety strategies of several different countries and international organizations, this study proposes a conceptual
Road traffic safety framework for road traffic safety consisting of a common vision, traffic safety indicators, a safe system including
Traffic safety culture the 3Es and some additional Es, and a traffic safety culture, which is the basis of the framework.
Safe system © 2022 International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. This is an
Common vision open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2. Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3. A conceptual framework for road traffic safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Changes in road safety goals in each country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1. From individual goals to building a safe system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2. Safe system approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3. Road safety in the sustainable development goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Safety measures and evaluation indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Traditional 3Es and new Es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Common road traffic safety indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Traffic safety and traffic safety culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Traffic safety culture and the safe system approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. International comparative analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Toward a common vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1. From national goals to globally shared goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. Directions derived from a conceptual framework for road traffic safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Funding sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Declaration of Competing Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: akinori@waseda.jp (A. Morimoto).Peer review under responsibility of International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iatssr.2021.11.012
0386-1112/© 2022 International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
A. Morimoto, A. Wang and N. Kitano
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
Global road traffic fatalities have remained high in recent years,
reaching 1.35 million in 2016 [1]. Although road traffic casualties have
decreased in some developed countries after the publication of their
own road safety strategies, road traffic injuries remain a global public
health problem, especially in low-income and middle-income countries
[2]. Road traffic injuries are the eighth leading cause of death interna-
tionally, and each year, there are many people suffering from road traffic
crash-related issues globally, indicating that road traffic crashes remain
an extremely serious problem [1]. Despite the attention road traffic
safety receives worldwide, more effort is necessary.
As road safety systems develop, the main research themes over the
years have focused on improving vehicles, roads, driver skills, and the
effects of speed. Developments focusing on the system approach, in-
volving different management and assessment systems to reduce the
risk of crashes, have recently gained more attention [3]. However, if fur-
ther significant improvement is to be made, a new era of safety culture
development is necessary [4]. Page [5] conducted a comparative study
of traffic fatality rates in some countries, which indicated that culture
as an internal cause has an impact on traffic safety. Thus, in today's sit-
uation when the road traffic death rate has remained fairly stable at
around 18 deaths per 100,000 population over the past decade [1], the
traffic safety development is stagnant and further studies on traffic
safety culture can provide suggestions and support to make more signif-
icant progress.
At the same time, more international cooperation, mutual learning,
and information sharing are needed to overcome the stagnant situation
of global traffic safety. This study proposes a conceptual framework for
road traffic safety through a literature review and comparisons of traffic
safety visions, strategies, and plans of several different countries and in-
ternational organizations. Such a framework consists of a common
vision, traffic safety indicators, a safe system including the 3Es, engineer-
ing, education, and enforcement, as well as some additional Es, and traffic
safety culture, which is the basis and background of this framework.
The research flow began with a review of existing academic litera-
ture, and this was then used to propose a conceptual framework for
road traffic safety. Chapter 2 describes the changes and trends in road
safety goals set by different countries. Chapter 3 presents a comparison
of road traffic strategies based on common indicators among different
countries and international organizations. Chapter 4 analyzes trends in
research on traffic safety culture. Subsequently, Chapter 5 proposes a
Fig. 1. A target hierarchy of road safety [6].
4
IATSS Research 46 (2022) 3–13
common vision from national goals to globally shared goals, and
Section 6 concludes the paper.
1.2. Literature review
Wegman et al. [6] proposed the SUNflower approach for the interna-
tional comparison of road safety performance (Fig. 1). The elements in
this hierarchy were originally proposed based on the consultation doc-
ument on the Road Safety Strategy 2010 of New Zealand [7], including
“social costs, final outcomes (number killed or injured), intermediate
outcomes (performance indicators), programmes/measures, and struc-
ture/culture” [8]. The pyramid shape with five layers represented these
important elements in improving road traffic safety respectively and
provided standards to give a valid and reliable representation of coun-
tries' road safety performances in Europe. Bliss and Breen [9] also pro-
posed a road safety management system in the report of the traffic
safety management strategy of the World Bank, including three inter-
related elements: institutional management functions, interventions
and results for the effective development and implementation of the na-
tional road safety policies. The system was also mentioned in ISO
39001:2012, Road traffic safety (RTS) management systems — Require-
ments with guidance for use [10]. They emphasized the prominent role
of government, and Wegman et al. [6] argued that the local government
and individual responsibility are also essential. They introduced the
“Structure and culture” as the bottom layer, which could provide an es-
sential context to the higher-level indicators. With culture as the cor-
nerstone, safety measures and programs can be implemented, and a
range of indicators are used to assess different performances. The num-
ber of fatalities and injuries are considered as the final outcomes, and
the final goal of this framework is to reduce social costs caused by
crashes. It presented a very clear view towards building a conceptual
framework of road traffic safety improvement. However, over the past
decade, the social structure and transportation structure have been
changed [1]. The rising population and more motorization on a global
scale [1], the development of new technologies such as autonomous
driving, and policy updates all have the potential to lead to new road
safety issues. Under these conditions, it is necessary to adapt to the
change by progressing together as a global whole. The Sustainable De-
velopment Goals adopted by the United Nations, aiming to build a
more sustainable human society, were also based on the concept of
“Leave no one behind.” Thus, the conceptual framework needs a much
more comprehensive and wider perspective to adapt to the changes.
The global common vision consisting of short-term goals to reduce so-
cial costs and fatalities, and new global long-term goals is necessary.
A. Morimoto, A. Wang and N. Kitano IATSS Research 46 (2022) 3–13

The conceptual framework is based on previous research and cur- explored which analytical unit the concept of traffic safety culture can
rent conditions. Hughes et al. [11] studied the existing conceptual be applied to. The results show that from the three alternatives of
framework, summarized the road safety components and road safety local communities, nations, and peer groups, the analysis based on
policy tools, and compared the content of 58 road safety strategy peer groups can provide the most favorable foundation for targeted traf-
based on this. The authors found that these strategies have a narrow fic safety interventions. Otto et al. [30] found that people can improve
focus and lack a thorough conceptual framework based on systems the- traffic safety by intervening with someone who is engaged in poten-
ory and supported by evidence from research and practice. Chen et al. tially dangerous behaviors, which means that if more people choose to
[12] suggested that road safety improvement requires identifying the avert the dangerous behaviors of others, traffic safety is likely to be sig-
best exemplars in their class (best-in-class), i.e., finding worthwhile nificantly improved.
learning objects among groups with similar traffic safety performance.
The authors assessed the current state of traffic safety in a number of
European countries by studying road safety performance indicators to 1.3. A conceptual framework for road traffic safety
determine a composite index.
There are other comparison studies of traffic safety strategies imple- Traffic safety culture is an important part of the entire traffic system
mented in different countries and their development in recent years. as it is a complex internal factor that can affect the behavior of road
Mwebesa et al. [13] conducted an analysis and comparison of traffic users. Based on the consideration and analysis of its impact, a safe sys-
safety policies in Japan, Germany, and the Netherlands. Owing to the tem will be built, including the basic 3Es and extra Es. It can also be sum-
different situations and characteristics of these countries, they prioritize marized as 3E+α. In this context, α represents the proposed measures
traffic safety policies differently. Japan, for example, is more concerned to improve traffic safety in addition to the basic 3Es in the safety system,
about an aging society and the impact of natural disasters. Koornstra which will be adapted to new traffic problems arising from changing
et al. [8] suggest that we can analyze what makes countries with an ex- times, such as the improvement of the emergency response system
cellent performance in traffic safety, such as Sweden, the Netherlands, [25,26]. The system approach is the most important means of traffic
and the United Kingdom, deal with traffic safety problems more effec- safety strategies today. It abandons the traditional approach that origi-
tively than other countries through a country comparative analysis. It nally attributed the responsibility for road traffic crashes to humans,
is important to transfer these successful experiences to more countries and proposes the concept that every stakeholder in society should
especially LMICs that are still lagging behind in traffic safety. Tradition- take responsibility for the traffic safety system. A global indicator sys-
ally, these LMICs have continued to focus on controlling human errors tem should be proposed to evaluate traffic safety, and on this basis, do-
and improving poor vehicle design instead of focusing on the reason mestic indicators of each country will be proposed to help better
for injury outcome [14]. However, in contrast to the identification of monitor the development status toward future development.
only one or a few elements [14], those countries that are advanced in Based on the aforementioned discussion, a conceptual framework
traffic safety have shifted the focus of traffic safety development to the for road traffic safety can be developed. As shown in Fig. 2, the common
establishment of a safe system. Many studies have suggested that in a vision of road safety at the top of the triangle also represents the ulti-
safe system, road users will not be killed or seriously injured because mate goal of eliminating death due to road traffic crashes. Toward this
of their mistakes [15–20], which also leads to the application of this ap- goal, a set of indicator systems are needed to help supervise the traffic
proach in many countries’ strategies to improve traffic safety. Safarpour safety status and formulate traffic safety policies more effectively.
et al. [21] compared the traditional method with the system approach Such an indicator system will be based on a safety system, which in-
and determined that "a paradigm shift toward a safe system has taken cludes a series of detailed measures focusing on different directions. Fi-
place in most developed and developing countries.” nally, because traffic safety culture has a complex impact on traffic
Vision Zero was first proposed by the Swedish government in 1997 safety, it will be the basis and background of the framework. Together,
and has been continuously studied in recent years [22–24]. It has been these elements constitute a conceptual framework for road traffic
gradually recognized worldwide as the direction needed for traffic safety.
safety work based on a system approach. Vision Zero proposed a long-
term goal that no one should be killed or seriously injured as a result
of road traffic crashes in the road transport system [22]. In addition, it
states that the responsibility for road safety should be changed from
road users to road designers, representing a break in traditional thinking
[23].
Some measures based on traditional traffic safety improvement
methods have also proposed new directions owing to the system ap-
proach. Based on the original 3Es of engineering, education, and en-
forcement as the three main traffic safety measures, more Es have
been identified in recent years. They include, establishing a more effi-
cient emergency response system, analyzing and evaluating traffic
safety [25,26], and paying special attention to elderly and young people
[25]. These new Es also provide a more detailed implementation direc-
tion for the system approach.
The term "safety culture" has been discussed in many major accident
investigations and system failure analyses in high-risk industries and is
considered to have a possible risk mitigation role in road traffic systems
[27]. It can be defined as shared beliefs, attitudes, and norms relevant to
safety [28]. Safety cultures often differ among regions and countries
[29]. Changing the status of traffic safety by studying safety culture is
still a challenge that will involve the setting and evaluation of complex
cultural indicators, as well as cooperation and exchange between differ-
ent countries [27]. Traffic safety culture may have great potential for im-
proving traffic safety. In their research, Nævestad and Bjørnskau [29] Fig. 2. A conceptual framework for road traffic safety

5
A. Morimoto, A. Wang and N. Kitano
2. Changes in road safety goals in each country
2.1. From individual goals to building a safe system
In the history of road traffic safety strategy planning, traditional road
safety has mostly emphasized the responsibility of road users. Many
traffic safety measures introduced in the past have focused on control-
ling violations or errors made by road users, to coerce the individual
into adapting to the road transport system, usually through training,
regulation, and monitoring [24]. However, safety hazards remain be-
cause it is impossible for humans not to make mistakes. Every small
mistake or instance of poor judgment can be a fatal problem in road traf-
fic. Under such conditions, the Swedish government adopted a new di-
rection in traffic safety in 1997, called Vision Zero. This aimed for a
conceptual shift in thinking that the main reason for road traffic crashes
was not human error but the deficient road traffic system [31]. Accord-
ing to Vision Zero, the long-term goal set for traffic safety was that no
one should be killed or seriously injured because of a flaw in the road
transport system, and the design of the road traffic system should be de-
veloped to meet this requirement [32].
Vision Zero provides a new vision for road traffic safety systems. It is
assumed that crashes cannot be completely avoided; hence, it is neces-
sary to build a road traffic system that can tolerate human errors and
specific strategies can be set on the basis of it [22]. Road users must com-
ply with traffic rules, and designers need to improve the system accord-
ing to the ability of road users to ensure that they can obey the rules
without being killed or seriously injured in road traffic crashes. This
means that the guarantee of human life and good health is an absolute
requirement for the design and operation of the road transportation
system, and all strategies and development should serve this principle
[23].
Similarly, the vision of sustainable safety originating from the
Netherlands in the 1990s was also based on the improvement of the
road traffic system. The Netherlands’ road safety strategy aims to create
a transportation system with no crash casualties by considering human
aspects as the primary factors and taking efforts to reduce the potential
risks of traffic systems [33].
Such changes in strategies and unprecedented ambitions make
Sweden’s Vision Zero and The Netherlands’ Sustainable Safety different
from traditional traffic safety strategies, and also achieve significant out-
comes in traffic safety. Road deaths in Sweden were halved between
2000 and 2010 [32]. Although the progress after this is not that signifi-
cant, Sweden is still one of the safest countries in the world, with only
approximately three road deaths per 100,000 people per year [34]. A
similar reduction in the number of road deaths was observed in the
Table 1
Traffic safety policies in different countries and international organizations
Period 1990–2000 2001–2010
Development Technology - System approach - Traffic Safety Culture
of Traffic
Safety
Sweden Vision Zero
(1997)
The Functionally divide the Sustainable Road Safety Strategic
Netherland urban area into traffic Safety Start-up Plan 2008–2020
areas and residential (1998)
areas
Australia First National Safe System Approach The National Road Strategy 2011–2020
Road Safety (The National Road
Strategy (1992) Safety Strategy
2001–2010)
New Zealand
Norway
International
organization
IATSS Research 46 (2022) 3–13
Netherlands. These signs of progress in road deaths have been recog-
nized internationally and have also proved that traffic safety can be im-
proved by building a safe traffic system. Some countries, such as
Norway, Australia, and New Zealand, abandoned the traditional strate-
gies and launched their own national traffic safety strategies based on
the successful experiences of Sweden and the Netherlands (Table 1).
2.2. Safe system approach
Human beings cannot always maintain the capability to deal with
the complex demands of socio-technical systems; hence, understanding
human capabilities and finding a way to adapt the characteristics of the
system to these capabilities seems to be a viable solution to road safety
problems [15]. While factors such as road and traffic environment,
speed limits, and so on should be managed and integrated [16],
human capabilities and limitations must also be considered when de-
signing road transport systems [15]. The safe system approach looks at
the road transport system from a comprehensive and holistic perspec-
tive, including the interaction between all components [34]. Thus, the
harm caused by human errors in the road transport system, in the
form of death and severe injuries in crashes can be minimized [16].
Sweden’s Vision Zero and the Netherlands’ Sustainable Safety are
the longest established safe system approaches [17]. Australia's road
safety strategy over the past 20 years is also based on a safe system ap-
proach. The effective implementation of this approach needs to be
based on a number of key factors, which include obtaining appropriate
evidence to support system-based strategic decisions [18]. Govern-
ments at all levels must develop and implement data collection, storage,
and analysis systems. At the same time, the design and implementation
of the system, such as infrastructure, policies, and technologies sup-
ported by system-based methods and models of human performance,
will also have an impact on the effectiveness of the approach [18].
2.3. Road safety in the sustainable development goals
In 2000, the United Nations announced Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs), which included the achievement of eight development
goals by 2015. The progress was uneven, especially in low-income
countries, and the development goals were not achieved, particularly
those related to health concerns [35]. Therefore, based on the important
framework provided by the MDGs, the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) were adopted in 2015, aiming to set a wide range of economic
and environmental goals and provide hope for a more peaceful and in-
clusive society [36]. They included 17 goals, 169 targets, and 231 unique
indicators. The third goal focuses on health, and specifically on ensuring
2010–Present
Sustainable Safety 3rd Edition-The advanced vision for 2018-2030
Road to ZERO New Zealand’s Road Safety Strategy 2020–2030
National Plan of Action for Road Safety 2018–2021 Short Vision
Global Plan for the Together with UNECE on the Global Plan of Action for the
Decade of Action for road to safety-Cutting road 2021-2030 Decade of Action for
Road Safety traffic deaths and injuries in half Road Safety (UN) (draft on
2011-2020 (UN) by 2020 (2015) April 16, 2021)
6
A. Morimoto, A. Wang and N. Kitano
healthy lives and promoting well-being for all ages. In addition to dis-
ease prevention and control, as shown in Fig. 3, Target 3.6 calls for halv-
ing the number of global deaths and injuries from road traffic crashes by
2020 [35], which means that traffic safety is an important issue for fu-
ture health development. Goal 17 mentions strengthening the means
of implementation and revitalizing the global partnership for sustain-
able development [35]. This indicates that cooperation and communica-
tion among countries is an important development direction for the
future.
3. Safety measures and evaluation indicators
3.1. Traditional 3Es and new Es
Through a review of traffic safety development in recent years, the
indicators of certain basic elements were determined for a comparative
study.
The safe system approach indicates that it is necessary to build a safe
traffic system, and based on this basic principle, some detailed safety
measures and evaluation indicators are worthy of discussion. In the
past, the basic 3Es involving engineering, enforcement, and education
represented the most important components of traffic safety. Engineer-
ing refers to traffic management and traffic engineering techniques [37],
including the improvement of vehicle standards, the construction and
management of road facilities and infrastructure, and traffic regulations.
Enforcement is indicated by the effective enforcement of traffic legisla-
tion. Education typically refers to public education (educating the public
about traffic safety) and driver education (driving skills training) [25].
Through the 3Es, the most obvious traffic safety problems such as
risky behaviors, road infrastructure management, and vehicle standards
can be solved effectively.
However, there are some newly discovered problems and challenges
with time. Research on traffic safety is no longer only attributed to
human beings, vehicles, or roads, the importance of multi-agency part-
nership working has been identified. For example, Jamroz et al. [38]
mention “3E + 3C” when describing the development direction of
road safety in Poland, in which the new 3Cs represent cooperation, co-
ordination, and collaboration. This concept indicates that the improve-
ment of traffic safety requires the coordinated action of different
departments and traffic stakeholders. Similarly, after considering a
broader system approach a 7Es perspective is proposed, including the
basic 3Es together with economics, emergency response, enablement,
SDGs: Goal 3.
Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
Sources: hp://www.unic.or.jp/files/sdg_logo_en_2.png Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (2019)
Fig. 3. Road traffic safety in the SDGs.
7
IATSS Research 46 (2022) 3–13
and ergonomics [26]. In addition to engineering, enforcement, and edu-
cation, the 7Es approach attempts to review and learn from the rela-
tively good practice of road traffic safety in the UK. It points out that
the improvement of the emergency response system will also play a
role in reducing road casualties. It is also important to provide open ac-
ademic and financial support for traffic safety research. Similarly, an ef-
fective emergency response system and the analysis and evaluation of
traffic safety are also discussed by Groeger[25]. Groeger proposes an as-
sessment of the driving ability of people at risk of incidents (such as the
elderly) and the study of the behavior tendency of people with specific
characteristics are also important elements, so as to reduce exposure to
specific groups as elements to improve road traffic safety [25].
These studies and explorations based on the traditional 3Es concept
have developed more factors that can improve road traffic safety; they
also provide new ideas and elements on how to build a safe road system.
As summarized in Fig. 4, the road traffic safety indicator system includ-
ing 3Es and additional necessary Es is developed based on the theory
proposed by Groeger.
3.2. Common road traffic safety indicators
Many countries and international organizations have published traf-
fic safety strategies and policies to deal with traffic safety problems.
These strategies or policies have similar goals but differ in their focus.
A scoping review is used to conduct a comparative analysis. Commonly,
scoping reviews are used to summarize research gaps and findings [39];
in the current study, it is used to quickly understand the key compo-
nents of road traffic safety management system globally. The research
framework of this scoping review includes the following steps. First,
the theme of the study is determined to be the strategies of road traffic
safety proposed by different countries and international organizations.
The published relevant content is then obtained from relevant institu-
tions, and strategies with goals and detailed planning are screened
out. Finally, a summary and comparison are completed by creating a
table to extract important information. The comparison includes the
year of implementation of the strategy, the targets to be achieved, and
whether safety measures based on road traffic safety indicators are
mentioned.
From the summary in Tables 2 and 3, some countries and interna-
tional organizations have set goals for the future development of road
traffic safety, including the reduction of deaths and serious injuries. In
the specific content of the strategies, it is obvious that the basic 3Es is
Targets
3.6 By 2020, halve the number
of global deaths and injuries
from road traffic accidents
Indicators
3.6.1 Death rate due to road
traffic injuries
A. Morimoto, A. Wang and N. Kitano
Educaon
Engineering
Targets
Traffic safety outcome
Enforcement
• Road fatalies per
Emergency response
100,000 populaon
• RTA fatalies
• RTA injuries Exposure
Evaluaon
Examinaon
Fig. 4. Road traffic safety indicators
still the focus of development in many countries. Most countries men-
tion in their traffic strategies that traffic safety awareness among people
need to be improved through education, such as school education and
media propaganda. The management and maintenance of road infra-
structure, control of vehicle safety standards, and promotion of more
on-board technologies for improving safety are also discussed. At the
same time, some countries consider strengthening the management of
traffic regulations and implementing stricter enforcement. Some of
them also include more high-tech devices and information technologies
should be applied in road safety supervision and law enforcement.
Among them, speeding and drunk driving are the most important ex-
amples of risky behaviors. Most of the strategies focus on how to deal
with road traffic crashes caused by speeding and drunk driving (or driv-
ing under the influence of drugs). In addition, emergency response is
often mentioned in international organization plans but less in coun-
tries’ strategies. Some countries focus more on evaluation based on a
well-established dataset and informed analysis. This also requires the
building of a more complete and reliable information collection system
to encourage more analysis and research.
The indicators established by international organizations have few
uniform standards for enforcement and evaluation of reliable data on
a cross-country scale. However, national indicators tend to be more de-
tailed and based on local conditions, such as the pre-test driver training
mentioned by Germany in its safety strategy. Differences in the concret-
ization of the concept of the safe system approach and different contexts
of the organization and countries may have led to such differences and
are also reflected in the different indicator systems established. Thus,
the realization of a road safety system should provide a more common
framework at different levels of policy, scientific research, practice,
and individual.
4. Traffic safety and traffic safety culture
4.1. Traffic safety culture and the safe system approach
Several countries have adopted a safe system approach to manage
traffic safety problems, and many studies have proposed that the future
direction of traffic development should be to build a traffic safety cul-
ture. As shown in Fig. 5, the third stage of traffic safety development
will be the development of a "safety culture period [40]." The first
stage focused mainly on improving the traffic safety technology, and
the second stage adopted a more advanced system approach to manage
traffic safety. In the third stage it is time to focus on the impact of a
8
IATSS Research 46 (2022) 3–13
Traffic safety educaon
(including public educaon &
driver educaon)
Vehicle standards
Road infrastructure
management
• Speed
Regulaons
• Drink-driving
• Seatbelt use
Enforcement • CRS
of traffic rules • Helmet use
• Inaenon while
driving
Reliable data collecon & Efficient
evaluaon
Examinaon of competence and
fitness
safety culture on road traffic. Leviäkangas [41] defines the term “traffic
culture” as “the sum of all factors that affect the skills, attitude, and be-
havior of drivers as well as equipment (i.e. vehicles)” and “a result of
both the larger cultural in heritage which is carried inside us and the
present state of the environment including the economy, political cli-
mate, and the values respected.” Lajunen et al. [4] proposed that traffic
safety culture can be defined as “the sum of all factors that affect the
skills, safety attitudes, and safety behavior of road users.” According to
the working definition of the US Department of Transportation Safety
Council, traffic safety culture is defined as “the shared values, actions,
and behaviors that demonstrate a commitment to safety over compet-
ing goals and demands” [40]. In addition, Otto et al. [30] described the
traffic safety culture as “the values and beliefs shared among groups of
road users and stakeholders that influence their decisions to behave or
act in ways that affect traffic safety.” More efforts still need to be made
to build a safe traffic atmosphere and traffic environment to influence
road users to participate in traffic more safely and reduce or even elim-
inate deaths in the future. Therefore, traffic safety culture is to make
traffic culture safer, that is, to help to change people's behaviors,
norms, and attitudes that are detrimental to traffic safety, such as ag-
gressive driving, drunk driving, or running red lights [42]. In summary,
traffic safety culture has a potential impact on changing road users' be-
haviors and improving traffic safety.
Research on traffic safety culture can also be used to reflect the huge
differences in road traffic safety among countries [4]. As Lonero men-
tioned [43], driving behavior is strongly influenced by driving culture,
which is defined as "common practices, expectations, and informal
rules that drivers learn by observing others in their community." Simi-
larly, by learning about the influence of traffic culture, we can study
the potential causes of high-risk behaviors of road users and help to
change their decision-making pattern. This could allow them to sponta-
neously choose safer behavior patterns to reduce casualties, and may
even make progress in countries that seem to have become nearly per-
fect in improving traffic safety [44]. Traffic safety culture could be a new
paradigm introduced into the traffic system, which could help to make
further improvements in road safety [40].
4.2. International comparative analysis
To investigate regional differences, the E-Survey of Road Users’ Atti-
tudes (ESRA) is a fast-evolving network of research organizations and
road safety institutes worldwide. Its projects include collecting compara-
ble data about road safety status and road users' cultural characteristics,
A. Morimoto, A. Wang and N. Kitano IATSS Research 46 (2022) 3–13

Table 2
Common road traffic safety indicators (int. org.).

1RTA: Road traffic accident

*E1: Education; E2: Engineering; E3: Emergency Response; E4: Enforcement; E5: Exposure; E6: Examination of competence; E7: Evaluation &Reliable data
*R1: Speeding; R2: Drink-driving; R3: Seatbelt use; R4: Child Restraint System; R5: Helmet use; R6: Mobile phone use while driving; R7: Fatigue; R: Road infrastructure management;
V: Vehicle standards

such as living behaviors, attitudes, beliefs, norms, and values in 46 coun-
tries across six continents [45]. ESRA originally determined that simple ca-
sualty data is not sufficient to show the real causes of road traffic crashes,
and they cannot help to improve traffic safety problems. It hopes to pro-
vide a unified benchmark through international cooperation using a
questionnaire survey to reduce the phenomenon of extremely low com-
parability of survey results under the influence of differences in objec-
tives, scope, or methods among different countries [46]. The survey is
based on the most important indicators in the field of road traffic safety,
such as speeding, which could help further discussion and research on

9
A. Morimoto, A. Wang and N. Kitano IATSS Research 46 (2022) 3–13

Table 3
Common road traffic safety indicators (country).

1 RTA: Road traffic accident

* E1: Education; E2: Engineering; E3: Emergency Response; E4: Enforcement; E5: Exposure; E6: Examination of competence; E7: Evaluation &Reliable data
* R1: Speeding; R2: Drink-driving; R3: Seatbelt use; R4: Child Restraint System; R5: Helmet use; R6: Mobile phone use while driving; R7: Fatigue; R: Road infrastructure management;
V: Vehicle standards

the improvement of policies and measures. Many studies have been con- that most respondents supported the policies and measures to restrict
ducted on the basis of the ESRA survey. Pires et al. [47] compared and an- dangerous traffic behaviors and believed that traffic rules need to be
alyzed the performance of vehicle drivers in 32 countries. It was found inspected more regularly and strictly. The collection of people's attitudes

10
A. Morimoto, A. Wang and N. Kitano IATSS Research 46 (2022) 3–13

Table 4
Basic principle of the plan for each country and international organization

Countries/International organizations Basic principles of the Plan

Vision Zero (1997) The long-term goal for road safety is

Sweden
Sustainable Safety (2018)
Netherland
Road to ZERO (2019)
New Zealand
National Plan of Action for Road Safety Our road safety work will be based on
(2018) Norway
Fig. 5. Three periods in traffic safety [40] National Road Safety Strategy
(2011-2020) Australia
and behaviors in different countries can help researchers to understand Road Safety Commission National
the potential causes of road traffic crashes, and also provide relevant pub- Action
lic opinions on the improvement of policies and regulations. Yannis et al. Plan (2013–2020) Denmark
[48] analyzed the performance and attitude of vulnerable road users in 32
11th Fundamental Traffic Safety
countries, including pedestrians, cyclists, and powered two-wheeler Program (2021) Japan
riders, and put forward some suggestions on how to improve the safety Sustainable & Safe: A Vision and
of vulnerable road users. ESRA provides evidence for scientific research Guidance for Zero Road Deaths
to help study different traffic cultures and determine more effective poli- (2018) World Bank
cies, not only at the national level, but also at the international level [45].
Global Plan for the Decade of Action for The guiding principles are those
Traffic culture also presents different characteristics at different Road Safety (2010) UN
times. Taking the recent global spread of COVID-19 as an example, the
traffic culture has also changed before and after it in many areas.
Under the influence of lockdown and other policies, studies have
EU Road Safety Policy Framework
shown that road users in some countries are more inclined to engage (2020) European Commission
in aggressive driving behavior. Although the number of traffic fatalities
has decreased [49], collisions become deadlier as drivers engage in risky
behaviors [50].
The influence of traffic culture on traffic safety cannot be ignored,
Global Plan of Action for the 2021 –
and it still needs further research. More detailed data are needed, 2030 Decade of Action for Road
which will be an important step for future research on traffic safety. Safety UN
proposed to be that no one should be
killed or seriously injured as a result of
traffic accidents within the road
transport system.
A sustainably safe road traffic system
prevents road deaths, serious road
injuries, and permanent injury by
systematically reducing the underlying
risks of the entire traffic system.
A New Zealand where no one is killed or
seriously injured in road crashes.
the vision of no one being killed or
seriously injured within the road
transport system.
It is firmly based on Safe System
principles and is framed by the guiding
vision that no person should be killed or
seriously injured on Australia's roads.
To ensure that errors by road users do
not cause serious accidents, and also
limit dangerous driving as far as
possible. We all have a responsibility.
Aiming to a society without traffic
accidents.
The “Safe System” approach outlined in
this report starts from the basic premise
that human error is inevitable, but traffic
fatalities and serious injuries are not.
included in the "safe system" approach.
It starts from the acceptance of human
error and thus the realization that traffic
crashes cannot be completely avoided.
The premise that no loss of life is
acceptable needs to inform all decision
making on road safety. The Safe System
approach aims for a more forgiving road
system.
Shared responsibility.
It draws further attention to effective
governance as a central aspect of
implementation of the safe system.

5. Toward a common vision

the world needs to achieve a safe transportation society, which is a
5.1. From national goals to globally shared goals shared responsibility for all.

From Vision Zero to Sustainable Safety, we can see the ambition and
action of many countries in improving traffic safety. However, from a
global perspective, traffic safety still requires more attention and effort,
especially in LMICs. Under the guiding principle of the SDGs, "Leave no
one behind," all road accident deaths in the world need to be prevented.
This requires more international cooperation, mutual learning, and in-
formation sharing. We need to build a more perfect transportation soci-
ety to cope with different challenges, such as how to achieve a better
sustainable living environment and deal with the automated driving so-
ciety. Furthermore, there are also events that may have an impact on
traffic safety, for instance, the global pandemic like today's COVID-19,
which has also changed the status of traffic safety in some countries.
For instance, although the casualties decreased because of reduction in
travel, more speeding behaviors have occurred in Denmark, France,
and Spain [50]. The new normal transportation society that may be
formed after COVID-19 also needs to be considered. Therefore, a com-
mon global vision must be established in the future. As summarized in
Table 4, most of the principles of strategies for some countries and inter-
national organizations refer to the establishment of a safety system in
which no one will be killed or seriously injured in a car accident and
the sharing of responsibilities. Thus, as a common goal in the future,
5.2. Directions derived from a conceptual framework for road traffic safety
Returning to the conceptual framework in Fig. 2, in order for the
world to realize a safe transportation society, as shown below, it is nec-
essary for the international community to determine 1) a common vi-
sion at the political level, 2) indicators at the scientific level, and
3) safety measures at the practical level. It is also necessary to establish
4) traffic safety culture as basic elements and social factors at the civic
level. Although the contents of these four levels differ from region to re-
gion, the conceptual framework is the same, and international coopera-
tion and consensus building are essential to make them common across
regional differences.
1) Political level Common Vision: From regional vision to global vision
2) Scientific level Indicators: Common indicators and domestic indica-
tors
3) Practical level Safety measures: Safety systems that include 3E+α
4) Civic level Traffic safety culture: Social factors that vary by region
A notable international effort in this direction is the Global Plan De-
cade of Action for Road Safety 2021-2030 [51], which was launched in

11
A. Morimoto, A. Wang and N. Kitano
October 2021 based on the UN Resolution 74/299 of August 2020 [52].
In light of the fact that the target of halving the number of global deaths
and injuries from road traffic accidents in SDG 3.6 was not achieved by
2020, a goal of reducing road traffic deaths and injuries by at least 50 per
cent from 2021 to 2030 has been set. Aligning with Stockholm Declara-
tion, the outcome document of the Third Global Ministerial Conference
on Road Safety in 2020, the Global Plan emphasizes a holistic approach
to road safety, involving efforts such as integrating multimodal trans-
port and land-use planning into the safe system approach. The Global
Plan may be positioned as a milestone in achieving the ultimate com-
mon vision: the goal of zero traffic fatalities and injuries.
6. Conclusion
In order to realize a safe transportation society where no one gets
hurt, it is necessary not only to improve the transportation system and
environment, but also to build a social system that supports mobility.
Countries with advanced transportation systems have been gradually
approaching the realization of a safe transportation society by imple-
menting different measures. The number of road traffic crashes has cer-
tainly decreased in these countries, but this does not mean that fatalities
and serious injuries have been reduced to zero, even in developed coun-
tries. Human error cannot be eliminated as long as humans are involved.
crashes caused by human error are the common responsibility of all of
us in this kind of transportation society. This awareness is spreading
around the world, and international efforts to improve road safety
continue.
Advances in information and communication technology have cre-
ated an environment in which people can seamlessly use different
transportation systems. In 2016, Mobility as a Service (MaaS) was pro-
posed and launched in Finland as a new transportation concept that
seamlessly connects all modes of transportation other than the private
car as a single service. Furthermore, in 2021, the world's first self-
driving car equipped with Level 3 (Conditional Driving Automation)
will be commercially available. The realization of an automated driving
society will still take time, but the automobile society that relies on pri-
vate cars is coming to an end, and a "people-centered transportation
system" that allows people to freely transfer between different modes
of transportation will become mainstream. When different transporta-
tion systems are automated and interconnected by ICT, the number of
road traffic crashes represented by human errors is significantly re-
duced. In such a future transportation society, traffic safety will be rec-
ognized as a task that the transportation system itself must take on,
and the importance of the traffic safety culture that supports it will in-
crease.
Through international comparative research and proposing a con-
ceptual framework for road traffic safety, this study shows that it is nec-
essary to construct a safe system that is adapted to the different traffic
cultures of each country and to share knowledge in safety technology.
It is also crucial to use comparisons and evaluations based on common
indicators as guideposts in the implementation of road safety measures
in their countries. In order to build a safe transportation society, we
need to bring together all the wisdom we have accumulated so far. At
the same time, all of us have a common responsibility in realizing this
goal.
Funding sources
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agen-
cies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
12
IATSS Research 46 (2022) 3–13
Acknowledgements
This study is based on discussions and data collected through the ac-
tivities of the Global Research Alliance on Traffic and Safety (GRATS) es-
tablished by the International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences
(IATSS). GRATS is a flagship project aimed at building a common plat-
form for road traffic safety in order to strengthen partnerships with do-
mestic and overseas stakeholders. We would like to express our
gratitude to all members and parties involved in their cooperation.
References
[1] World Health Organization, Global Status Report on Road safety 2018: Summary
(No. WHO/NMH/NVI/18.20), World Health Organization, 2018.
[2] World Health Organization, Global Status Report on Road Safety: Summary (No.
WHO/NMH/VIP/09.01), World Health Organization, 2009.
[3] M.P. Hagenzieker, J.J.F. Commandeur, F.D. Bijleveld, The history of road safety re-
search: A quantitative approach, Transp. Res. F 25 (2014) 150–162, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.trf.2013.10.004.
[4] T. Lajunen, E. Gaygısız, T. Özkan, Analysis of Cultural Patterns in (Road) Traffic Sys-
tems: A Comprehensive Research Report [Deliverable 4.2] for Traffic Safety Cultures
and the Safe Systems Approach Towards a Cultural Change Research and Innovation
Agenda for Road Safety [TraSaCu] Project, 2017.
[5] Y. Page, A statistical model to compare road mortality in OECD countries, Accid. Anal.
Prev. 33 (3) (2001) 371–385, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(00)00051-8.
[6] F. Wegman, J. Commandeur, E. Doveh, V. Eksler, V. Gitelman, S. Hakkert, D. Lynam, S.
Oppe, SUNflowerNext: Towards a composite road safety performance index, Deliv-
erable D6 (2008) 16.
[7] LTSA, Road safety strategy 2010; A consultation document. National Road Safety
Committee, Land Transport Safety Authority LTSA, Wellington, New Zealand, 2000.
[8] M. Koornstra, D. Lynam, G. Nilsson, P. Noordzij, H.-E. Pettersson, F. Wegman, P.
Wouters, SUNflower; A comparative study of the development of road safety in
Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, SWOV Institute for Road Safety
Research, Leidschendam, the Netherlands, 2002.
[9] T. Bliss, J. Breen, Country guidelines for the conduct of road safety management ca-
pacity reviews and the specification of lead agency reforms, investment strategies
and safe system projects, 2009.
[10] ISO 39001, Road traffic safety (RTS) management systems — Requirements with
guidance for use, 2012.
[11] B.P. Hughes, A. Anund, T. Falkmer, A comprehensive conceptual framework for road
safety strategies, Accid. Anal. Prev. 90 (2016) 13–28.
[12] F. Chen, J. Wu, X. Chen, J. Wang, D. Wang, Benchmarking road safety performance:
Identifying a meaningful reference (best-in-class), Accid. Anal. Prev. 86 (2016)
76–89.
[13] M.E. Mwebesa, K. Yoh, H. Inoi, K. Doi, A new approach to cross-sector cooperation in
road safety through a comparison of policies in selected countries, I.A.T.S.S. Res. 42
(4) (2018) 197–206, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iatssr.2018.08.001.
[14] D. Khorasani-Zavareh, System versus traditional approach in road traffic injury pre-
vention: a call for action, J. Inj. Violence Res. 3 (2) (2011) 61, https://doi.org/10.
5249/jivr.v3i2.128.
[15] P. Larsson, C. Tingvall, The safe system approach – a road safety strategy based on
human factors principles, Lecture Notes in Computer Science International Confer-
ence on Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics, Springer, Berlin, Heidel-
berg 2013, pp. 19–28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39354-9_3.
[16] C. Jurewicz, K. Hall, Speed Limit Setting Principles in the Safe System Context, pre-
sented at 2009 Australasian Road Safety Research, Education and Policing Confer-
ence, Sydney, 2009.
[17] J. Langford, Towards Zero: understanding a Safe System approach to road safety,
Fact Sheet 1 (2009).
[18] P.M. Salmon, M.G. Lenné, Putting the “system” into safe system frameworks, J.
Australas. Coll. Road Saf. 20 (3) (2009) 21–22.
[19] ITF, Zero Road Deaths and Serious Injuries: Leading a Paradigm Shift to a Safe Sys-
tem, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2016.
[20] F. Wegman, The future of road safety: A worldwide perspective, I.A.T.S.S. Res. 40 (2)
(2017) 66–71, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iatssr.2016.05.003.
[21] H. Safarpour, D. Khorasani-Zavareh, R. Mohammadi, The common road safety ap-
proaches: A scoping review and thematic analysis, Chin. J. Traumatol. 23 (2020)
113–121, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjtee.2020.02.005.
[22] C. Tingvall, N. Haworth, Vision Zero-An ethical approach to safety and mobility, 6th
I.T.E. International Conference Road Safety & Traffic Enforcement: Beyond, vol. 2000,
1999.
[23] R. Johansson, Vision Zero – Implementing a policy for traffic safety, Saf. Sci. 47 (6)
(2009) 826–831, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2008.10.023.
[24] M.Å. Belin, P. Tillgren, E. Vedung, Vision Zero – a road safety policy innovation, Int. J.
Inj. Control Saf. Promot. 19 (2) (2012) 171–179, https://doi.org/10.1080/17457300.
2011.635213.
[25] J.A. Groeger, How many e’s in road safety? Handbook of Traffic Psychology, Aca-
demic Press 2011, pp. 3–12.
[26] K.L. Plant, R.C. McIlroy, N.A. Stanton, Taking a ‘7 E’s’ Approach to Road Safety in the
UK and Beyond, in: R. Charles, J. Wilkinson (Eds.), Contemporary Ergonomics and
Human Factors, CIEHF, Wootton Park, UK 2018, pp. 1–8.
A. Morimoto, A. Wang and N. Kitano
[27] D.A. Wiegmann, T.L. von Thaden, A.M. Gibbons, A review of safety culture theory
and its potential application to traffic safety, Improv. Traffic Saf. Cult. U. S. 113
(2007).
[28] A.R. Hale, J. Hovden, Management and culture: the third age of safety. A review of
approaches to organizational aspects of safety, health and environment, Occup.
Inj. Risk Prev. Interv. (1998) 129–165.
[29] T.O. Nævestad, T. Bjørnskau, How can the safety culture perspective be applied to
road traffic? Transp. Rev. 32 (2) (2012) 139–154, https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.
2011.628131.
[30] J. Otto, K. Finley, N.J. Ward, An Assessment of Traffic Safety Culture Related to En-
gagement in Efforts to Improve Traffic Safety (No. FHWA/MT-16-012/8882-309-
03), Western Transportation Institute, 2016.
[31] Swedish, Parliament, & committee on transport and communications 1997/98: TU4,
Protocol (1997) (Committee report 1997/98:13).
[32] A.C. Kristianssen, R. Andersson, M.Å. Belin, P. Nilsen, Swedish Vision Zero policies for
safety – A comparative policy content analysis, Saf. Sci. 103 (2018) 260–269, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.11.005.
[33] SWOV, Sustainable Safety, third edition, 2018 -, The Advanced Vision for,
2018–2030.
[34] International Transport Forum, Road Safety Annual Report, OECD Publishing, Paris,
2017.
[35] The United Nations, Transforming Our World: the 2030, Agenda for Sustainable
Development, 2015. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/
21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf.
(Accessed 30 March 2021).
[36] World Health Organization, Health in 2015: from MDGs, Millennium Development
Goals to SDGs, Sustainable Development Goals, 2015.
[37] H. Nishiuchi, Traffic safety education and awareness activities in Japan. Traffic safety
education and public awareness activities in 8 countries [International report],
https://www.iatss.or.jp/common/pdf/en/iatss/composition/FY2014_Report_JP_En.
pdfIATSS, 2014.
[38] K. Jamroz, L. Michalski, S. Gaca, Road safety programmes as an effective tool for de-
veloping system-based road safety policies, J. KONBiN 1 (2) (2006).
13
IATSS Research 46 (2022) 3–13
[39] H. Arksey, L. O’Malley, Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework,
Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 8 (1) (2005) 19–32, https://doi.org/10.1080/
1364557032000119616.
[40] T. Özkan, Traffic Safety Cultures and the Safe Systems Approach–Towards a Cultural
Change Research and Innovation Agenda for Road Safety (TraSaCu), 2018.
[41] P. Leviäkangas, Accident risk of foreign drivers - the case of Russian drivers in South-
Eastern Finland, Accid. Anal. Prev. 30 (2) (1998) 245–254, https://doi.org/10.1016/
s0001-4575(97)00077-8.
[42] AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Improving Traffic Safety Culture in the United
States [Technical report], AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Washington, DC, 2007.
[43] L.P. Lonero, Finding the next cultural paradigm for road safety, Improv. Traffic Saf.
Cult. U. S. 1 (2007).
[44] N.J. Ward, J. Linkenbach, S.N. Keller, J. Otto, White Paper on Traffic Safety Culture
[White Paper 2], 2010.
[45] E-survey of road users’ attitudes, https://www.esranet.eu/en/publications/
(Accessed March 30, 2021).
[46] U. Meesmann, H. Nakamura, The ESRA Initiative: towards Global Monitoring and
Analysis of Road Safety Performance, 2020.
[47] C. Pires, K. Torfs, A. Areal, C. Goldenbeld, W. Vanlaar, M.A. Granié, et al., Car drivers’
road safety performance: A benchmark across 32 countries, I.A.T.S.S. Res. 44 (3)
(2020) 166–179, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iatssr.2020.08.002.
[48] G. Yannis, D. Nikolaou, A. Laiou, Y.A. Stürmer, I. Buttler, D. Jankowska-Karpa, Vulner-
able road users: cross-cultural perspectives on performance and attitudes, I.A.T.S.S.
Res. 44 (3) (2020) 220–229, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iatssr.2020.08.006.
[49] OECD, Road Safety Annual Report, https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/
irtad-road-safety-annual-report-2020_0.pdf 2020 (Accessed March 30, 2021).
[50] ETSC, COVID-19: the impact of covid-19 lockdowns on road deaths in April 2020,
https://etsc.eu/wp-content/uploads/PIN-Corona-Briefing_final.pdf 2020 (Accessed
March 30, 2021).
[51] World Health Organization, Global Plan Decade of Action for Road Safety 2021-
2030, World Health Organization, 2021.
[52] United Nations, Resolution A/RES/74/299: Improving global road safety, 2020.