Vison Zero – A Scientific Based Traffic
Injury Reducing Strategy in Sweden
Ulf Björnstig
Professor of SurgeryUmeå UniversitySweden

Umeå University Hospital

Vision Zero – what it really means• Vision Zero is an image of a desirable futuresociety• Vision Zero do not accept people being killed
or seriously injured in the road traffic system

Vision Zero
Shift of paradigm from:• Avoiding ”accidents” to -----

reducing serious, disabling and fatal injuries• Trauma energy------limiting factor

Vision Zero - responsibility
1. The designers (owners) of the transport system
are responsible for the design, operation and useof the system and for the safety within the entiresystem

2. The road users are responsible for obeying therules in the system

Vision Zero - responsibility
3. If the road users fail to obey these rules due
to lack of understanding, acceptance orability, or if injuries occur, the systemdesigners must take further steps to makethe system safe

(Swedish Parliament 1997)

Hugh De Haven
Survivingfalls from50 – 150 feet
15 – 45 meter

Critical survival
factor:A deceleration
distance

Free fall:
40 meter
100 km/h

km/h

Limit for survival( 175-200g)

free fall
300 m

160
10040 m

503m
2013 6 12 30 120
Deceleration distance(cm)
Snyder 1970

Trauma energy

1000 km/h to zero - deceleration time 1.4 sec

Check the ride at Youtube – John StappTrauma energy
The human body can withstand severe crashes
given:• a deceleration distance• ”package”

Injuries arepreventablenon-random
eventsW Haddon Jr

Haddons matrix
Phases

Factors

Human Vehicle/
PhysicalSocioequipment environment economicenvironment
Pre-crash
Crash
Post-crashPedestrians% Probability of Pedestrian Fatality

Risk / Impact speed
10090807060504030201001020304050

Impact Speed (km/h)

6070

Safe speed?
km/h

Stopping distancem

Safe speed
Automatic speed camera ---pedestrian crossing

Curitiba, Brazil, year 2000

Safe speed - responsibility of the system owner
Speed bumps

Safe speed
Automatic speed camera

Road-side hazards

Un-deformable light-pole

Deformable light-pole

Danger !
Road barrier

Road side hazards
EuroRAP – National Automobile Clubs in cooperation
with road authorities

Forgiving road (side)Prevention of frontal crashes -responsibilityof the system owner
Heavy vehicles vspassenger cars

Increasing problem!!
1/3 to 1/2 of passanger car
collision deaths

Collision deaths –passenger car occupants• 1990:ies

1/3 crashes against heavy vehicles• 2000:ies

1/2 crashes against heavy vehicles(but in 2/3 of the crashes a heavyvehicle is involved either as crash
object or as overtaken object)

Collisions deaths - heavy vehicles
Trucks and buses, as collision objects, kills five times
as many passenger car occupants per driven km aspassenger cars do.

Deformable front (0.5 m) on trucks would
reduce fatal injuries 1/3 = 900 lives/yr inEurope

Design: Scania

Midbarrier - preventing frontal crashes

“Package”

Seat belt non-user
50 km/h crash

Seat belt reduces fatal injuries by 69%(Evans 2004)

Seat-belt use vs injury severity
100%

(80%)

(75%)
(48%)

0MAIS 1

MAIS 2+MAIS >3

Seat belt reminders• In the 1990:ies 80 % used seat belt
• A decade later:
About 99% of car occupants in cars with seatbelt reminders use their belts

Drunk and impaired driving• Increasing problem…

A decade with Vision Zero

Alcohol and drugs in fatally injured
drivers - Sweden

Alcohol-/drug
positive
Alkocol positive

1991-1993

2005-2006

26%

50%

24%

38%

Alcohol and drugs in non-fatally injured
hospitalized drivers Umeå - Sweden

Alcohol-/drug
positive
Alcohol positive

1991-199321%

2005-2006
31%

12%

21%

Traffic Law Enforcement

The police ”owns the laws”
Photo: Police

Alco-lock

Photo: Carl Johan Erikson

Vision zero - success factors and difficulties
Sucess factors:• A transport minister, Ines Uusmann, understanding
the problem and the scientific base for reducing
traffic injuries, put forward by Claes Tingvall, traffic
safety director.
• Processed Vision Zero quickly to a Parliament
decision October 1997
Difficulties:• Road administration and other traffic authorities
felt left behind in the decision process – causing
resistance at many levels

Number of fatalities in the official statistics
last decade - SwedenYear

Fatalities

2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2012
2013
2014
2015

440
445
471
397
358
266*
285
260
270259* From 2010, excluding killed by suicide – about 20-30/year

Vehicle-related injuries in and around amedium sized
Swedish cityNon fatal injuries treated at hospitalv.s. police reported injuries
580

250
118593246

Development last decade of non
fatal traffic injuries - Umeå• Passenger car injuries has decreased 44 percent
from 450 to 250 in a decade.
• Two wheel motor vehicle riders has decreased 35percent.
• The number of injured bicyclists and pedestrian
have not decreasedA decade with Vision Zero

Three remaining problems• Alcohol and drugs• Passenger car collisions against heavyvehicles• Roadside hazards

The future

Vision Zero 2.0 – new focus• Vulnerable road users• Preventing suicides in traffic environment• New technique – crash avoidance systems
www.trafikverket.se/en/startpage/operations/Opera
tions-road/vision-zero-academy/
www.visionzeroinitiative.com/en/Academy
Swedish Government September 2016

Development-vulnerable road users
Airbag for pedestrians

Development-front crash prevention
Front crash prevention goes by many names, theterms ”forward collision warning” and ”automatic
emergency braking” is widely used. Volvo – City
brake

Design: VolvoDevelopment-self driving car

All with influence on roadtraffic safety
Working together
Multi-disciplinary cooperation at alllevels engaging medicine,engineering, human factors etc. will
make the road traffic safe