Eva Lundberg is national coordinator for the Swedish traffic safety camera system and senior project manager for traffic safety at the Swedish Transport Administration. Lars Ekman is a Swedish national expert on traffic safety and an analyst of traffic safety countermeasures. Together, they outline the main road infrastructure safety challenges and what can be done to tackle them.

What are the main challenges today in road infrastructure safety management?
In Sweden, one of the main challenges is to improve safety on our existing roads, such as by harmonising speed limits with road designs. Another challenge is vulnerable road users – in this respect, there is growing interest in promoting cycling. New technology can also be a challenge. The Swedish government has launched a renewed commitment to Vision Zero, involving intensified safety efforts. Our strategy is to continue with measures we know are efficient and implement them more widely, although we are also looking for new and effective countermeasures. We will not have a big budget for safety measures so we will plan and implement them simultaneously with other initiatives. Most of our measures are not motivated by safety alone, but all maintenance and investment should lead to safety improvements in line with the safe system approach outlined in Vision Zero.

Could you briefly describe your approach?
Our road safety act requires a survey of the existing road network to be carried out and an action plan drawn up. In Sweden, we have focused on creating a simple and robust model that describes a road’s safety class based on road design, speed limit and traffic flow. The underlying principle is to classify road design on the basis of injury consequences in the event of an accident. Data is obtained from the Swedish Transport Administration’s database, including on traffic flows, speed limits, presence of cameras and barriers. This is examined regionally, and sections are classified as very good, good, less good or low. In general, 2+1 roads (those with two lanes in one direction and one in the other) have low injury rates, and even those 2+1 roads classified as ‘low’ typically have lower injury rates than non-2+1 roads in the same category.

Can you give a concrete example here?
For the Swedish Transport Administration, classification provides a good basis for planning. We can improve safety by adapting speed limits and controls to the road standard. The Administration is carrying out a review of speed limits, and the classification is a good way of communicating the reasons behind the review. The results are available to road users to help them plan safe journeys.

What do you think road authorities could do better?
The Swedish Transport Administration can improve safety on existing roads by using road safety knowledge more widely. To do this, we need high-quality data on the standard of roads and knowledge of the effects of minor actions. Relatively small investments combined with maintenance operations can increase safety. Examples include installing a rumbling centre line when resurfacing a road and upgrading side protection systems on existing roads with high traffic volumes.

In your view, how can the EU help?
Road safety work depends on cooperation and continued commitment among stakeholders. Feedback on the effects of actions is an important element that can be achieved in an EU setting. In order to follow developments, a simple model is required that enables road safety standards to be compared. Just as we compare numbers of road deaths between countries, it would be valuable if we could also compare safety standards on road networks. Benchmarking is a driving force for improvement and the EU could be the body for traffic safety benchmarking.

How should we invest in road infrastructure safety?
When planning measures, we should follow the Vision Zero principles, create a safe system that considers all components (infrastructure, road users and vehicles) and take into account crash severity. To get value for money, we should not do more than necessary (such as not building a highway where a 2+1 road is enough). When planning infrastructure, we can accept accidents if a measure saves lives but might cause more damage to vehicles. An example is replacing crossings with roundabouts. Roundabouts may well result in more collisions but serious injuries will be almost eliminated since the severity of collisions will be significantly reduced. Eliminating the possibility of head-on collisions with barriers is another very efficient way of saving lives, while eliminating or protecting dangerous roadside objects is cost-effective, too. As regards vulnerable road users, reduced speeds are important since total separation is both expensive and difficult to achieve.