The idea of envisioning zero fatalities in
transport was first adopted in Sweden in 1997. In 2002, the Norwegian Parliament followed the lead from Sweden. The National Transport Plan 2002-2011 stated that no fatalities or serious injuries should be the ultimate goal for Norwegian transport systems. There has been some controversy
and confusion as to whether Vision Zero is to be seen as a concrete goal or as a more general ethical imperative (the majority would probably agree with the latter). However, no matter which of these two interpretations of Vision Zero one would prefer, the fact remains that Vision Zero represents a radical shift from previous safety philosophies in road transport. It implies that we no longer accept that road transport claims hundreds of lives each year, statistics that would have been seen as outrageous in any other branch of transport. Vision Zero transfers some of the responsibility for road safety from the road users to the organizations that build, manage and maintain roads. Previously, this
responsibility was placed solely upon the
users, through §3 in the Norwegian road
traffic act, which stated that each user was
responsible for driving carefully and observantly.
Studying the interpretation of Vision Zero
Although many have discussed the
strengths and weaknesses of Vision Zero,
there have been few attempts to analyse
how this general vision translates into local
practice and action. Therefore, a group of
researchers from NTNU Social Research
Ltd. and SINTEF conducted a study that,
among other things, aimed to assess how
employees of the Norwegian Directorate of
Public Roads perceived and interpreted
the vision, and whether the vision had led
to any actual changes. The research was
funded by the Norwegian Research
Council’s programme for Risk and Safety
in the Transport sector (RISIT). The study
combined questionnaire and interview
assessment, and was a case study of one district within the Directorate of Public Roads.
Increased attention on road safety
Our results indicate that the introduction of Vision Zero has had some positive effects.
|
|
79 per cent of the respondents felt that Vision Zero had led to increased attention on road
traffic safety. Especially, the employees perceived that there was an increasing interest in and debate on the use of central reserve safety barriers and to some extent also on roadside design.
Despite these positive effects, the majority
of the employees still see the need for the general vision to be accompanied by more concrete goals and measures. Only 48 per cent of the respondents agree that Vision Zero has had real effects on the work to improve road safety. Especially, many employees complain that the ambitious
vision has not been followed by increased budgets. In fact, some perceive that there has been a decrease in the grants available for maintaining road infrastructure.
The increased focus on road safety seems to have been mostly directed towards high profile projects, rather than the continuous work in the organization. The following quotation illustrates this:
“We pretty much think the same way as we
always have (...) In Sweden, Vision Zero was
something that pervaded everything. I feel that we have been more focused on singular projects, rather than Vision Zero being a movement within the entire organization (...) The Swedes accomplished more by granting more money, which made it more visible in the department.”
In 2002, the Norwegian Parliament stated in The National Transport Plan 2002–2011 that no fatalities or serious injuries should be the ultimate goal for Norwegian transport systems.
|
|
Expectations have not been fulfilled
Our work with the Directorate of Public Roads has left an impression of an rganization which is quite susceptible to the ideas of Vision Zero. However, the introduction of Vision Zero created expectations that the resources available for safety measures would be increased. So far, these expectations have not been fulfilled. In our
view, the gap between expectation and
result can have important implications.
As have been shown by recent research on safety culture, managers’ consistent prioritization of safety is essential in fostering
commitment to safety among the employees.
Perceived differences between espoused ideals and concrete practice may erode the confidence and trust in management’s valuation of safety. This insight is highly relevant also for the introduction of Vision Zero in road transport. When there is too big a distance between the messages expressed in speeches, and the messages conveyed in concrete prioritizations, the risk is that the organization becomes indifferent. Such indifference would form an effective barrier to future work towards safety improvement. Thus, introducing high-flying visions that are not accompanied by concrete priorities are not only useless, it can even be counter-productive. The visions have to be translated and integrated into real practices so that the employees perceive that the vision really contribute to change the way people and the organization think and act.
Stian Antonsen,
NTNU Social Research Ltd., Norway
Lone S. Ramstad,
Norwegian Marine Technology Research
Inst itute (MARINTEK), Norway
Contact
Stian Antonsen
For more information
Samforsk |
