APPROACH

SAFE

SYSTEM

THE

INTEGRATING THE

Safe System

Approach

WITH THE

Highway Safety

Improvement

Program

AN INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Image source: Pixabay user B_Me
Notice 

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) 

in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the 

information contained in this document.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names 

appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.

Non-Binding Contents 

The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the 

public in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing 

requirements under the law or agency policies. While this is non-binding guidance, you must comply with 

the applicable statutes or regulations. 

Quality Assurance Statement 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, 

industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used 

to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. The FHWA 

periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality 

improvement.

Source of Charts and Tables 

All charts and tables in the document were created by FHWA, except where noted otherwise. 
1. Report No.

FHWA-SA-20-018

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Integrating the Safe System Approach with the Highway Safety 

Improvement Program: An Informational Report

5. Report Date

October 2020

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

Emily Finkel – Fehr & Peers

Cullen McCormick – Fehr & Peers DC

Meghan Mitman, AICP – Fehr & Peers

Sarah Abel - ITE 

Jackie Clark – Leidos

8. Performing Organization Report 

No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Fehr & Peers DC

1003 K Street NW

Suite 209

Washington, D.C. 20001

Leidos, Inc.

1750 Presidents St

Reston, VA 20190

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

 

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH6116D00053 / 693JJ319F000384

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Office of Safety 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

13. Type of Report and Period 

Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

HSST

15. Supplementary Notes

FHWA Project Leader, Karen Scurry, FHWA

16. Abstract

The purpose of this report is to explore the relationship between the Safe System approach and the HSIP. This report 

focuses on the two major components of the HSIP: the States’ Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and the program 

of highway safety improvement projects (or States’ HSIP), as well as foundational elements of the HSIP that influence 

both program areas. The report first defines the principles and core elements of the Safe System approach. The report 

then examines foundational elements of the HSIP, State SHSP, and State HSIP as compared to the Safe System 

principles and presents areas of alignment, as well as opportunities and noteworthy practices. The report concludes 

with a discussion of next steps for Federal and State safety stakeholders to advance implementation of the Safe 

System approach through these existing safety programs. The primary target audience for this report is Federal and 

State safety stakeholders involved in the State SHSP and HSIP. The report may also benefit other safety stakeholders 

that have a vested interest in these existing safety programs or administer similar efforts at the regional or local level 

(e.g., State safety program, local road safety plans).

17. Key Words

Safety, Safe System approach, 

Highway Safety Improvement 

Program (HSIP), Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), 

countermeasures, speed, Vision 

Zero

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the public.

19. Security Classification (of 

this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classification (of 

this page)

Unclassified

21. No of Pages

58 

22. Price
Table of Contents

Table of Contents ..........................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................................

.............................................................................................

..............................................................................

............................ .............................................................................................

............................................................................................................................

.....................................................................................................................................................................................

.....................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................................................

..........................................

...................................................................................................................................................................................

.........................................................................

.....................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................................................................

................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................................................

............................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.....................................................................................................................................................................................

.....................................................................................................

............................................................................................................................................................................................

.............................................................................................................................................................................................

 4

Introduction. 5

The Safe System Approach .. .. 6

Purpose, Target Audience, and Structure of Report..... .... 8

Safe System Principles and Core Elements . .. 9

The Core Principles of a Safe System..... . .... 9

The Five Elements of a Safe System ..... ..11

Summary ...14

Integrating Safe System within HSIP... 15

Overview ..... ..15

Alignment of Safe System Principles with HSIP Foundational Elements .16

Summary .18

Integrating Safe System with Strategic Highway Safety Plans .... 19

Overview .... .19

Alignment of Safe System Principles with Major SHSP Features.. .20

Opportunities and Noteworthy Practices... .25

Summary... .35

Integrating Safe System with State HSIPs 36

Overview . .36

Alignment of Safe System Principles with Major State HSIP Features..... .37

Opportunities and Noteworthy Practices. .42

Summary.. .55

Conclusion and Next Steps ... 57

SHSP... .57

HSIP .... 57
5 

Introduction

Traffic safety is a public health crisis affecting all road users, and it demands a concerted response. Each 

year, more than a million lives are lost globally from traffic crashes.1 Road traffic crashes are the eighth 

leading cause of death globally.

2 In 2018, an average of more than 100 people lost their lives on roads in 

the United States (U.S.) every day.3 For the past 3 years, fatalities on U.S. roads are the highest they have 

been in 10 years.4 Even more troubling, the number of pedestrians struck and killed by a motor vehicle 

has increased by more than 50 percent in the past decade.5 Although pedestrian fatalities in 2017 slightly 

decreased,

6 2018 (the last year on record at time of publication) was the deadliest, since 1990, for people 

killed by motor vehicles while walking.7 This is unacceptable. 

Crashes can irreversibly change the course of human lives, touching victims, their families and loved ones, 

and society as a whole. But we do not have to simply accept death or serious injury as a consequence of

using our roadway system. Through collective action from all roadway system stakeholders—from system 

managers and vehicle manufacturers to law enforcement and everyday users—we can move to a Safe 

System approach that helps to anticipate human mistakes and keeps impact energy on the human body 

at tolerable levels, with the goal of eliminating fatalities and serious injuries for all road users. 

Imagine a future in the United States where no one dies in a trafficrelated crash. Thinking about safety requires a paradigm shift in 

how we perceive the problem. Rather than accepting fatalities and 

serious injuries as a price for mobility, the philosophy of the Safe 

System approach is grounded in an ethical imperative that no one 

should be killed or injured when using the roadway system. 

The Safe System approach is a worldwide movement that has been 

in place across the globe for more than 30 years. The Federal 

Highway Administration’s (FHWA) top priority is safety. FHWA fully 

supports the vision of zero deaths and serious injuries on the 

Nation’s roadway system and recognizes that a Safe System is how 

we get there. 

1 World Resources Institute (WRI), Sustainable and Safe: A Vision and Guidance for Zero Road Deaths (2018), 

https://www.wri.org/publication/sustainable-and-safe-vision-and-guidance-zero-road-deaths. 

2 World Health Organization (WHO), “The top 10 causes of death” (May 2018), https://www.who.int/news-room/factsheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death. 

3 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) database, 

https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx. 4 NHTSA, FARS database, https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx. 

5 NHTSA, FARS database, https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx. 

6 NHTSA, FARS database, https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx. 

7 NHTSA, FARS database, https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx. 

Implementing the Safe 

System approach 

requires evaluating the 

current state of 

practice, evolving the 

approach for 

consistency, and 

institutionalizing the 

paradigm shift.
6 

Implementing the Safe System approach requires evaluating the current state of practice, evolving the 

approach for consistency, and institutionalizing the paradigm shift. The Highway Safety Improvement 

Program (HSIP), which sets the funding and policy tone for national safety implementation efforts, is a key

place to start. 

The Safe System Approach

A Safe System approach acknowledges that the human body is vulnerable, in terms of the amount of 

kinetic energy transfer a body can withstand. This vulnerability is taken into account when designing and 

operating a transportation network to minimize serious consequences of crashes. According to the World 

Health Organization, the goal of a Safe System is to ensure that if crashes do occur, they “do not result in 

serious human injury.”8 As shown in figure 1, a Safe System approach addresses the five elements of a 

safe transportation system—safe road users, safe vehicles, safe speeds, safe roads, and post-crash care—

in an integrated manner, through a wide range of interventions. 

Figure 1. Illustration. The Safe System approach. (Source: FHWA) 

The Safe System approach to road safety started internationally as part of the Vision Zero proclamation 

that, from an ethical standpoint, no one should be killed or seriously injured on the road system.9,10 It is 

founded on the principle that people make mistakes, and that the road system should be adapted to 

8 WHO, Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011–2020 (2011), 9, 

https://www.who.int/roadsafety/decade_of_action/plan/plan_en.pdf. 

9 R. Johansson, “Vision Zero - Implementing a Policy for Traffic Safety,” Safety Science 47 (2009): 826–831.

10 C. Tingvall and N. Haworth, “An Ethical Approach to Safety and Mobility” (paper presented at the 6th ITE 

International Conference Road Safety and Traffic Enforcement, September 6–7, 1999, Melbourne, Australia).
7 

anticipate and accommodate human mistakes and physiological and psychological limits.11 Countries that 

have adopted the Safe System approach have had significant success reducing highway fatalities, with 

reductions in fatalities between 50 and 70 percent.

12 

In the United States, nearly 50 cities have adopted a Vision Zero policy.13 They are supported by the 

Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) national strategy on highway safety to advocate for eliminating serious injuries 

and deaths on our Nation’s roadways, conceptualized by participants in an FHWA workshop in 2009.14

While TZD focuses on the importance of creating a culture of safety, and Vision Zero focuses on 

eliminating deaths and serious injuries, few local or national plans had explicitly stated the importance of 

a Safe System approach in achieving these goals. However, in 2018, the RAND® Corporation and the 

National Safety Council released The Road to Zero, a strategy document that has been held up by road 

safety experts as a national model since its publication.15 The Road to Zero is built on a foundation of the 

Safe System approach, calling for the United States to “prioritize safety by adopting a Safe System 

approach and creating a positive safety culture.”16

The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the Road to Zero Coalition’s Safe Systems Framework17

articulate that to anticipate human mistakes, a Safe System seeks to: 

• Separate users in a physical space (e.g., sidewalks, dedicated bicycle facilities)

• Separate users in time (e.g., pedestrian scramble, dedicated turn phases)

• Alert users to potential hazards 

• Accommodate human injury tolerance through interventions that reduce speed or impact force

Creating a Safe System means shifting a major share of the responsibility from road users to those who 

design the road transport system. “Individual road users have the responsibility to abide by laws and 

regulations”18 and do so by exhibiting due care and proper behavior on the transportation system. While 

road users are responsible for their own behavior, that behavior should not result in a fatality or serious 

injury in a culture of shared responsibility among road users and those who design, operate, and maintain

11 M.-Å. Belin, P. Tillgren, and E. Vedung, “Vision Zero - A Road Safety Policy Innovation,” International Journal of 

Injury Control and Safety Promotion 19 (2012): 171–179.

12 WRI, Sustainable and Safe: A Vision and Guidance for Zero Road Deaths, 

https://www.wri.org/publication/sustainable-and-safe-vision-and-guidance-zero-road-deaths. 13 Vision Zero Network, Vision Zero Communities Map, retrieved from https://visionzeronetwork.org/resources/visionzero-cities/. 

14 Toward Zero Deaths, retrieved from https://www.towardzerodeaths.org/. 

15 National Safety Council (NSC) and the RAND® Corporation, The Road to Zero: A Vision for Achieving Zero Roadway 

Deaths by 2050 (2018), https://www.nsc.org/Portals/0/Documents/DistractedDrivingDocuments/DriverTech/Road%20to%20Zero/The-Report.pdf?ver=2018-04-17-111652-263. 

16 NSC and the RAND® Corporation, The Road to Zero (2018), paragraph 3, 

https://www.nsc.org/Portals/0/Documents/DistractedDrivingDocuments/Driver-Tech/Road%20to%20Zero/TheReport.pdf?ver=2018-04-17-111652-263. 17 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Safe Systems Framework (November 2019), 

https://www.ite.org/pub/?id=C8B1C6F9-DCB5-C4F3-4332-4BBE1F58BA0D. 

18 WHO, Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011–2020 (2011), 9, 

https://www.who.int/roadsafety/decade_of_action/plan/plan_en.pdf. 
8 

the transportation network, which includes road designers and managers; the automotive industry; police; 

elected officials; and government bodies.

19 

Purpose, Target Audience, and Structure of Report

The first step in initiating a paradigm shift to a Safe System is through education of Federal, State and 

local transportation safety leaders. As part of that education, we also need to understand how to advance 

Safe System implementation efforts through our existing programs and projects. 

The purpose of this report is to explore the relationship between the Safe System approach and the HSIP. 

This report focuses on the two major components of the HSIP: the States’ Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

(SHSP) and the program of highway safety improvement projects (or States’ HSIP), as well as foundational 

elements of the HSIP that influence both program areas. 

The primary target audience for this report is Federal and State safety stakeholders involved in the State 

SHSP and HSIP. The report may also benefit other safety stakeholders that have a vested interest in these 

existing safety programs or administer similar efforts at the regional or local level (e.g., State safety 

program, local road safety plans). 

The report first defines the principles and core elements of the Safe System approach. The report then 

examines foundational elements of the HSIP, State SHSP, and State HSIP as compared to the Safe System 

principles and presents areas of alignment, as well as opportunities and noteworthy practices. The report 

concludes with a discussion of next steps for Federal and State safety stakeholders to advance 

implementation of the Safe System approach through these existing safety programs.

19 WHO, Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011–2020 (2011), 

https://www.who.int/roadsafety/decade_of_action/plan/plan_en.pdf. 
9 

Safe System Principles

and Core Elements

The Core Principles of a Safe System

The fundamental objective of the Safe System approach aims to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries for 

all road users by accommodating human mistakes and keeping impacts on the human body at tolerable 

levels. What distinguishes the Safe System approach from the traditional safety approach is that no death 

or level of injury is acceptable in a transportation network. The core principles of a Safe System are shown 

in figure 2. 

 

Figure 2. Illustration. The Safe System core principles. (Source: FHWA)

Death/Serious Injury Is Unacceptable

While no crashes are desirable, the Safe System approach prioritizes crashes that result in death and 

serious injury. The Safe System approach is grounded in the imperative that no one should be killed or 

injured when using the road system, and decisions for designing and operating the system should 

prioritize safety.

Humans Make Mistakes

A Safe System assumes that road users are alert and compliant, but will inevitably make mistakes that can 

lead to crashes. The transportation system can be designed and operated to accommodate human 

mistakes and injury tolerances and avoid death and serious injuries. An example of designing a roadway 

to accommodate human mistakes is adding a median barrier to prevent errant drivers from entering 

oncoming traffic.
10 

Humans Are Vulnerable

The human body has limits for tolerating crash forces before death and serious injury occur; therefore, it is 

important to design and operate a transportation system that is human-centric and accommodates 

human vulnerabilities. This concept is illustrated in figure 3. 

 

Figure 3. Graph. Relationship between kinetic energy and crash severity. (Source: FHWA)

As figure 3 shows, the human body has limited tolerance for crash impacts before death or serious injury 

occur. Managing kinetic energy transfer within survivable limits is important for understanding how to 

design and operate the road system consistent with the Safe System philosophy. The Safe System 

approach focuses not just on managing speed but managing the transfer of kinetic energy.

Responsibility Is Shared

In a Safe System, all stakeholders work together in a manner that recognizes we are responsible for doing 

our part, so that crashes do not lead to fatalities or serious injuries. Stakeholders include, but are not 

limited to, road users, system managers (includes planners, designers, builders, operators, maintainers), 

law enforcement, emergency responders, and vehicle manufacturers. For example, system designers

propose facilities with proven safety countermeasures such as roundabouts or median barriers, system 

maintainers keep roadway systems in a state of good repair, vehicle manufacturers apply the latest safety 

features in vehicles, law enforcement equitably enforce traffic safety laws, and users of all travel modes 

safely move through the roadway system. 
11

Safety Is Proactive

Roadway system managers should use proactive tools to identify and mitigate latent risks in the roadway 

system, rather than waiting for crashes to occur and reacting afterwards. This process, known as the 

systemic approach to safety, uses crash history, roadway design characteristics, and other data to identify 

patterns in geometric design that lead to certain crash types. System designers then identify appropriate 

countermeasures to mitigate the crash types. These countermeasures are systemically applied at all 

locations meeting the particular geometric design, irrespective of crash history. Rather than managing risk 

at certain locations, a systemic approach takes a broader view and evaluates risk across an entire roadway 

system. A system-based approach acknowledges that crashes alone are not always sufficient to determine 

what countermeasures to implement. In particular, on low-volume local and rural roadways where crash 

densities are lower, and in many urban areas where there are conflicts between vulnerable road users 

(pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists) and vehicles. 

Redundancy Is Crucial 

Reducing crash potential requires all parts of the system to be strengthened so that if one part fails, other 

parts still protect roadway users. An example of redundancy is rumble strips, which protect people when 

their own ability to be safe road users is compromised by distraction or drowsiness. Redundancy is critical 

across all five elements of a Safe System, outlined in the next section.

The Five Elements of a Safe System

As defined by FHWA and in alignment with international non-governmental organizations, figure 4 

illustrates the five elements of a Safe System. 

 

Figure 4. Illustration. The five elements of a Safe System. (Source: FHWA)

These five elements apply to all roads, including freeways, local roads, and rural roads. None of the 

elements are sufficient on their own, and they should not be addressed in silos. When they are all taken 

into consideration and implemented as a whole, in a coordinated approach, the entire transportation 

network becomes safer.
12 

Safe Road Users

As part of the shared responsibility for safety, road users are expected to comply with rules of the road, 

including paying attention, adapting to changing conditions, not driving under the influence, and driving 

without distraction. Roadway design, education, enforcement, and vehicle feedback components (e.g.,

speedometer, automated driving systems) are all important in enabling and encouraging road users to 

behave safely. 

Safe Vehicles

Safe vehicles include active safety measures, which help prevent crashes from occurring (e.g., autonomous 

emergency braking), and passive safety measures, which protect occupants when a crash occurs (e.g.,

seatbelts and airbags). Yet, while vehicles have become safer for occupants, pedestrian deaths have 

increased in the United States.20 Safe vehicles should also account for the safety of other road users 

through elements such as vehicle size, design, and materials. Although safety is often touted as the 

primary benefit of an automated or autonomous vehicle fleet, a safer system is not inherent to smart 

infrastructure and technological innovation. Elements such as bicyclist and pedestrian detection on 

connected vehicles (CV) and autonomous vehicles (AV) will be necessary so that vehicles are safe for all 

road users in the future. 

Safe Speeds

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), “Speed is at the 

heart of a forgiving road transport system. It transcends all aspects of safety: without speed there can be 

no movement, but with speed comes kinetic energy, and with kinetic energy and human mistakes come 

crashes, injuries, and even deaths.”21 In 2017, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) released

Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles,

22 a report that stated, “Substantial 

reductions in highway crashes cannot be achieved without a renewed emphasis on the impact of 

speeding.”23

Maintaining safe speeds can help avoid crashes, as well as mitigate injury severity by reducing the speed 

at which impacts occur. Speed-limit-setting methodologies that provide alternatives to the traditional 

85th percentile approach, such as USLIMITS2,

24 can help determine appropriate speeds based on roadway 

context and modal priority, rather than the historic behavior of road users. Roadway design focused on 

20 Governors Highway Safety Association, Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State: 2018 Preliminary Data (2019), 

https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2019-02/FINAL_Pedestrians19.pdf. 

21 International Transport Forum (ITF), Zero Road Deaths and Serious Injuries: Leading a Paradigm Shift to a Safe 

System (2016), 107, http://www.towardszerofoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Zero_road_deathsSafeSystems.pdf. 

22 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Reducing Speed-Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles (July 

2017), https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1701.pdf. 23 NTSB, “Study Identifies Opportunities to Reduce Speeding-Related Deaths and Serious Injuries” (July 2017), 

paragraph 5, https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/pr20170714.aspx. 

24 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), “USLIMITS2,” page last modified April 28, 2020, 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/uslimits/. 
13

speed management, such as target speed-based design, is key to achieve target operating speeds. Many 

of these design strategies are highlighted in FHWA’s Speed Management: A Manual for Local Rural Road 

Owners25 and Speed Management Toolkit.

26 Enforcing existing speed limits, including automated 

enforcement, and educating road users also play a role in contributing to driver compliance with speed 

limits. Speed harmonization strategies can also be used to achieve safe speeds in congested areas.

Safe Roads

In a Safe System, driver behavior is taken into consideration as a part of engineering design. Design 

features and safety countermeasures—many of which are the primary focus of the HSIP—can contribute 

to safe roads by separating users in space and time. This separation can also be designed temporally, as 

with traffic signals, to mitigate conflicts between road users and reduce the risk of a crash. Safe roads also 

include clear zones where objects are relocated away from the road, or roadside appurtenances designed

to mitigate severity when roadway departures do occur. In an urban setting, vertical and horizontal 

separation can create additional space between heavier and faster vehicles and slower and smaller road 

users who are walking or cycling. Roundabouts, when designed well, are a countermeasure that can 

significantly reduce speed at intersections. Design designations, such as functional class and modal 

priority, can also support safe roads. Understanding functional class and modal priority can help to 

pinpoint the set of safety countermeasures that may be most effective on a given type of facility.

Post-Crash Care

In a Safe System, post-crash care incorporates elements related 

to emergency services and medical care, crash reporting and 

investigation, traffic incident management, and the justice 

system. Health outcomes for victims injured in serious crashes 

can be heavily dependent on the ability of emergency services to

quickly respond to the scene of a crash, administer on-site care, 

transport victims to the hospital, and provide care at the hospital 

and after discharge (if necessary). The post-crash response in a 

Safe System extends beyond emergency services. Quick-response and detailed investigation by police and 

road managers/operators can help ensure crash factors are documented and reported correctly, the 

justice system can take appropriate action, and the risk of future crashes can be mitigated through an 

appropriate design and program or policy changes. Crash reporting practices, such as complete data 

collection and documentation of road user behavior and infrastructure, and sharing data across agencies 

or organizations (e.g., among police departments, transportation officials, and hospitals) can help lead to 

a greater understanding of the holistic safety landscape, and thus lead to improved investments in safety. 

25 FHWA, Speed Management: A Manual for Local Rural Road Owners, FHWA-SA-12-027 (November 2012), 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa010413spmgmt/.

26 FHWA, Speed Management Toolkit, FHWA-SA-15-017, 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/docs/speedmanagementtoolkit_final.pdf. 

Design designations, such 

as functional class and 

modal priority, can 

support safe roads.
14 

Summary

This chapter summarized the Safe System approach, and the six core principles and five elements that are 

foundational for a Safe System and shown in figure 5. 

 

Figure 5. Illustration. Summary of Safe System core principles and elements. (Source: FHWA) 

The following chapters present the foundational elements of the HSIP, and major program features of the 

States’ SHSP and the States’ HSIP, and describe how each step is aligned with Safe System principles, as 

well as opportunities and noteworthy practices to better integrate the Safe System approach in these 

existing safety programs. 
15

Integrating Safe System within HSIP

Overview 

The HSIP is a core Federal-aid highway program with the purpose to significantly reduce fatalities and 

serious injuries on all public roads through the implementation of highway safety improvement projects. 

The HSIP is a federally funded, State-administered program established under 23 U.S.C. 148. The HSIP 

requirements are further clarified and defined by FHWA in 23 CFR Part 924. Each State develops and 

administers a program to best meet its safety needs. The HSIP requires a data-driven, strategic, and 

performance-based approach to improving highway safety on all public roads.

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP–21) 

Act introduced a performance-based framework for the Federalaid highway program and established national safety goals and 

safety performance measures for the purposes of carrying out 

the HSIP (MAP–21 §1203; 23 U.S.C. 150). The FHWA further 

defined and clarified the safety performance management 

requirements in 23 CFR Part 490. Effective April 14, 2016, FHWA

required States to set annual safety performance targets for the

number of fatalities, number of serious injuries, rate of fatalities, 

rate of serious injuries, and number of non-motorized fatalities 

plus serious injuries.27 The safety performance targets are interim 

performance levels that contribute toward the progress of the 

long-term goal of zero fatalities adopted by many States. 

According to the International Transport Forum, “Setting targets 

for the total number of fatalities and serious injuries has shown 

to be an important driver for initiating and realizing effective 

national road strategies.”28

The program’s purpose and safety performance management requirements are foundational elements 

that influence both the State SHSP and HSIP. The following section describes how these foundational 

elements of the HSIP align with and support implementation of the Safe System approach. Subsequent 

chapters provide specific opportunities and noteworthy practices to further align these foundational

elements within the State SHSP and HSIP. Figure 6 illustrates the relationship between the HSIP, State 

HSIP, and State SHSP. 

27 FHWA, “State Safety Performance Targets,” page last modified July 8, 2020, 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/spm/state_safety_targets/. 

28 ITF, Zero Road Deaths and Serious Injuries (2016), 67, http://www.towardszerofoundation.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/10/Zero_road_deaths-SafeSystems.pdf. 

 “Setting targets for the 

total number of fatalities 

and serious injuries has 

shown to be an 

important driver for 

initiating and realizing 

effective national road 

strategies.”

- International

Transport Forum 
16

Figure 6. Illustration. Relationship between HSIP. State HSIP. and State SHSP. (Source: FHWA) 

Alignment of Safe System Principles 

with HSIP Foundational Elements

The foundational elements of the current HSIP have some alignment with the Safe System principles. This 

alignment is illustrated and further described in table 1. 

Table 1. Safe System alignment with HSIP foundational elements. 

Purpose

The purpose of the HSIP is “to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public 

roads, including non-State-owned public roads and roads on tribal lands. The HSIP requires a data-driven, 

strategic approach to improving highway safety on all public roads that focuses on performance.”29

Safe System Principle Alignment Discussion

Death/Serious Injury 

Is Unacceptable

The HSIP is focused on reducing fatalities and serious injuries; however, 

it could be further strengthened to focus on eliminating death and 

serious injury.

Humans Make 

Mistakes

The purpose of the HSIP program does not acknowledge human 

mistakes.

Humans Are 

Vulnerable

The purpose of the HSIP acknowledges human vulnerability by focusing 

on fatalities and serious injuries, but it does not explicitly state this Safe 

System principle.

29 FHWA, “Highway Safety Improvement Program,” page last modified February 8, 2017, 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/hsipfs.cfm. 
17

Safe System Principle Alignment Discussion

Responsibility Is 

Shared

The HSIP’s program structure acknowledges that responsibility for 

roadway safety is shared between Federal, State and local partners, 

across disciplines (education, enforcement, engineering, EMS), and that 

collaboration is key. It does not, however, explicitly state that everyone 

has a responsibility for roadway safety consistent with the Safe System 

approach.

Safety Is Proactive The existence of the HSIP demonstrates proactivity for improving 

roadway safety.

Redundancy Is Crucial Redundancy is not explicitly stated in the purpose of HSIP; however, as 

noted above, it does acknowledge that safety is a shared responsibility 

and that it takes collaboration across disciplines to save lives. 

Safety Performance Management Requirements

The HSIP process is built on a foundation of setting and working toward achieving safety performance targets. 

States are required to set annual safety performance targets through HSIP (23 CFR Part 490), including number 

and rate of fatalities and serious injuries, and number of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries.

Safe System Principle Alignment Discussion

Death/Serious Injury 

Is Unacceptable

Since 2018, States have annually set safety performance targets, and in 

each following year, FHWA assesses States’ progress in meeting those 

targets. The safety performance targets align with the SHSP long-term 

goals and multiyear objectives. In addition, the projects, strategies, and 

activities funded through the States’ HSIP helps them make progress in 

achieving their safety performance targets.

Humans Make 

Mistakes

Safety performance targets do not explicitly address human mistakes.

Humans Are 

Vulnerable

Safety performance targets are set around death and serious injury, 

which implicitly recognizes that humans are vulnerable. However, safety 

performance targets do not explicitly state this Safe System principle. 

Responsibility Is 

Shared

State departments of transportation (DOTs) are accountable to FHWA, 

and State Highway Safety Offices are accountable to the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for progress toward 

meeting their safety performance targets. However, not all parties who 

should be involved in making roadways safer are acknowledged through 

safety performance management requirements. 

Safety Is Proactive By setting safety performance targets, States are taking the first step in 

being proactive and accountable for roadway safety issues.

Redundancy Is Crucial Redundancy is not explicitly stated in safety performance targets.

Full Alignment Partial Alignment Minimal Alignment/Not Applicable
18 

The foundational elements of the HSIP primarily support the Safe System principles that Death and 

Serious Injury Is Unacceptable and Safety Is Proactive. The purpose of the HSIP is focused on reducing 

fatalities and serious injuries and the safety performance management requirements holds States 

accountable for meeting their fatality and serious injury-based safety performance targets. The fact that 

the United States has a dedicated Federal safety program shows our commitment to proactively 

addressing safety and is a key component of a Safe System approach. While the principles that Humans 

Make Mistakes and Redundancy Is Crucial are minimally aligned with the HSIP foundational elements, 

these principles are addressed by other State SHSP and HSIP program features.

Summary 

This chapter outlined if the HSIP foundational elements are minimally, partially, or fully aligned with the 

core principles of a Safe System, and discussed how the existing alignments support implementation of a 

Safe System approach. Subsequent chapters provide specific opportunities and noteworthy practices to 

further align these foundational elements within the State SHSP and HSIP. The following chapter explores 

opportunities and noteworthy practices for aligning SHSPs with the Safe System approach. 
19

Integrating Safe System with 

Strategic Highway Safety Plans

Overview 

As part of the HSIP, States are required to develop SHSPs to provide a “comprehensive framework for 

reducing highway fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads.”30 States must update their SHSPs no 

later than 5 years from the date of the previously approved version (23 CFR 924.9(a)(3)(i)). The SHSPs help 

guide investment decisions made in the HSIP process toward projects that focus on mitigating the highest 

priority safety issues in each State. 

According to 23 CFR 924.9, each SHSP must include: 1) safety data collection and analysis, 2) selection of 

emphasis areas that identify key safety opportunities to reduce crash potential that had emerged from the 

analysis, 3) development of measurable objectives in mitigating fatalities and serious injuries within the 

emphasis areas, and 4) identification of strategies across the 4 E’s (i.e., engineering, education, 

enforcement, and emergency response) to address these objectives. Certain States have begun to use the 

SHSP as an opportunity to set an intention, policy, and funding framework following the Safe System 

approach.

The SHSP is a key opportunity to further develop and communicate the Safe System approach. The 

following sections demonstrate how the Safe System principles align with the major components of the 

SHSP process, as well as opportunities and noteworthy practices to further advance implementation of 

Safe System through State SHSPs. 

30 FHWA, “Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP),” page last modified June 16, 2017, https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/shsp/. 
20 

Alignment of Safe System Principles with Major SHSP Features

As shown in table 2, the components of SHSPs most aligned with Safe System principles are the use of 

effective strategies and countermeasures and the multidisciplinary approach that addresses the 4 E’s. This 

alignment is further described in the following section. 

Table 2. Safe System alignment with SHSP major program features. 

Ensure Adequate Leadership, Collaboration, and Communication

Implementation of the plan is in coordination with other statewide safety partners and programs and involves a 

broad range of agencies. According to the International Transport Forum, leadership is a key element of a 

successful paradigm shift to a Safe System.31 The recently published Core Elements for Vision Zero 

Communities, from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the Vision Zero Network, focuses four of 

its 10 elements on the importance of leadership and commitment.32

Safe System Principle Alignment Rationale 

Death/Serious Injury 

Is Unacceptable

The principle that death and serious injury is unacceptable is not present 

in this program feature.

Humans Make 

Mistakes

This key program feature does not acknowledge that humans make 

mistakes.

Humans Are 

Vulnerable

The principle that humans are vulnerable is not present in this program 

feature.

Responsibility Is 

Shared

SHSP leadership engages a cross-disciplinary leadership group in 

collaboration around roadway safety is an important foundation in 

recognizing the importance of shared responsibility.

Safety Is Proactive A proactive approach is not present in this program feature.

Redundancy Is Crucial Engaging a cross-disciplinary leadership group on the topic of roadway 

safety can help start conversations about the importance of redundancy 

in the roadway system, but the concept of redundancy is not inherent in 

this program feature.

Full Alignment Partial 

Alignment

Minimal Alignment/Not Applicable

31 ITF, Zero Road Deaths and Serious Injuries (2016), 67, http://www.towardszerofoundation.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/10/Zero_road_deaths-SafeSystems.pdf. 

32 Vision Zero Network and Institute of Transportation Engineers, Core Elements for Vision Zero Communities, retrieved 

from https://visionzeronetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/VZN_CoreElements_FINAL.pdf. 
21

A Performance-Based Approach

The SHSP process provides an opportunity to establish longer-term goals and objectives that align with annual 

safety performance targets. This provides consistency and direction across all safety plans and programs.

Safe System Principle Alignment Rationale 

Death/Serious Injury 

Is Unacceptable

Many State SHSPs list zero deaths or zero deaths plus serious injuries as 

a goal or include this concept in a policy statement, according to the 

SHSP database.33 A performance-based approach focuses not just on 

commitment, but also on accountability through goal setting and 

tracking. 

Humans Make 

Mistakes

This program feature does not acknowledge that humans make 

mistakes.

Humans Are 

Vulnerable

The current performance-based approach is based on a foundation of 

human vulnerability—death and serious injury—but does not fully 

incorporate the spirit of this Safe System principle.

Responsibility Is 

Shared

The performance-based approach can help illuminate shared 

responsibility between State and local roadway system managers, for 

example, but it does not account for multidisciplinary shared 

responsibility among many roadway users.

Safety Is Proactive Using a performance-based approach is a key first step States can take to 

be proactive about addressing roadway safety issues.

Redundancy Is Crucial The concept of redundancy is not a part of this program feature. 

Full Alignment Partial Alignment Minimal Alignment/Not Applicable

 

33 FHWA, “Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Database Search,” 

https://rspcb.safety.fhwa.dot.gov/shspsearch/statesearch.aspx. 
22 

Data-Driven Problem Identification

The SHSPs analyze and make effective use of State, regional, local, or and Tribal safety data. States should use 

the best available safety data to identify emphasis areas and strategies to inform safety improvement 

opportunities on all public roads.

Safe System Principle Alignment Rationale 

Death/Serious Injury 

Is Unacceptable 

The goal of data-driven problem identification is to uncover roadway 

safety issues responsible for death and serious injury.

Humans Make 

Mistakes

Data-driven problem identification can uncover roadway safety issues 

related to human mistakes, but it does not emphasize the importance of 

designing a roadway system that accounts for human mistakes.

Humans Are 

Vulnerable

In emphasizing fatal and serious injury crashes, human vulnerability is 

recognized, but this Safe System principle is not a key component of the 

data-driven approach.

Responsibility Is 

Shared

Data-driven problem identification can be performed in a collaborative 

process, but does not necessarily bring all responsible parties into the 

problem identification process.

Safety Is Proactive The SHSP problem identification has evolved over the years to 

incorporate both spot and systemic safety analysis. This comprehensive 

approach should continue to be emphasized and adopted as part of all 

SHSPs so the strategies that flow from the analysis represent a proactive 

approach.

Redundancy Is Crucial Redundancy is not a component of data-driven problem identification. 

Full Alignment Partial Alignment Minimal Alignment/Not Applicable

 
23

Use of Effective Strategies and Countermeasures 

High priority should be given to strategies that can eliminate roadway fatalities and serious injuries within the 

SHSP emphasis areas.

Safe System Principle Alignment Rationale 

Death/Serious Injury 

Is Unacceptable 

Effective strategies and countermeasures should address safety issues 

that result in death and serious injury. However, research supporting 

countermeasure use and implementation is often focused on all crashes, 

not the most severe.

Humans Make 

Mistakes

Using effective strategies and countermeasures can often address 

roadway safety issues related to human mistakes, but not all 

countermeasure implementation builds in the assumption of human 

error.

Humans Are

Vulnerable

Effective strategies and countermeasure help address human 

vulnerability, but not all countermeasures directly address the impact of 

speed and kinetic energy transfer on the human body.

Responsibility Is 

Shared

Effective countermeasures and strategies can be implemented by 

multidisciplinary partners who are responsible for roadway safety, but it 

is not guaranteed that all relevant parties will be included in this 

program feature.

Safety Is Proactive Implementing effective countermeasures and strategies can be a key 

step in a proactive approach to addressing roadway safety issues, but 

countermeasures are often still identified through a reactive crash

analysis process.

Redundancy Is Crucial Although some combinations of countermeasures can introduce 

redundancy into the roadway system, redundancy is not a major focus of 

countermeasure identification.

Full Alignment Partial Alignment Minimal Alignment/Not Applicable

 
24 

Multidisciplinary – Address the 4 E’s

The SHSP addresses a variety of factors, including engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency services 

(i.e., the 4 E’s). This applies to both infrastructure and non-infrastructure emphasis areas.

Safe System Principle Alignment Rationale 

Death/Serious Injury 

Is Unacceptable 

It is implied, but not explicitly stated, that the 4 E’s of safety are 

intended to eliminate death and serious injury.

Humans Make 

Mistakes

The 4 E’s, such as engineering and education, can address roadway 

safety issues related to human mistakes, but the assumption of human 

mistakes is not inherent in the 4 E’s.

Humans Are 

Vulnerable

It is implied, but not explicitly stated, that the 4 E’s of safety are 

intended to address human vulnerability related to crashes.

Responsibility Is 

Shared

The existence of the 4 E’s demonstrates the importance of shared 

responsibility in addressing roadway safety issues.

Safety Is Proactive Addressing all 4 E’s can be a key step in a proactive approach to tackling 

roadway safety issues, but a proactive approach is not inherent to the 4 

E’s of safety.

Redundancy Is Crucial Redundancy is introduced to the system when engineering, education, 

enforcement, and emergency services strategies are used together to 

tackle roadway safety issues.

Full Alignment Partial 

Alignment

Minimal Alignment/Not Applicable

The SHSP supports the principle that deaths and serious injuries are unacceptable through the SHSPs 

performance-based approach and data-driven problem identification. The SHSP emphasizes the 

importance of shared responsibility by ensuring adequate leadership, collaboration, and communication

across stakeholders and identifying multidisciplinary solutions that address the 4 E’s. The SHSP datadriven problem identification enables practitioners to proactively address safety, and the multidisciplinary 

nature of SHSP emphasis areas and strategies promotes system redundancy. It is not reasonable to expect 

every major SHSP program feature to fully align with each Safe System principle. Collectively, across all 

major SHSP program features, full alignment exists in at least one major program feature for every Safe 

System principle except Humans Make Mistakes and Humans Are Vulnerable. The following section 

presents opportunities and noteworthy practices to illustrate how Federal, State and local safety 

stakeholders can enhance SHSP efforts to better align with the Safe System principles. 
25

Opportunities and Noteworthy Practices

The following opportunities and noteworthy practices illustrate key considerations for practitioners to 

holistically integrate the Safe System approach into the State SHSP. 

1. Organize SHSP around Safe System Six Core Principles and Five Elements 

The SHSP provides the opportunity to establish leadership reinforcement that death and serious injury are 

unacceptable within each State. Organizing each State’s SHSP around Safe System elements could help to 

further integrate the approach into application. There are many ways States can integrate Safe System in 

their SHSP updates. Several options are presented below, and States should consider which approach 

works best for them. 

Align Emphasis Areas: States may choose to fully replace their emphasis areas with the five elements. 

Each element would incorporate all Safe System principles.

Align Strategies: For instance, if an emphasis area in an existing SHSP is roadway departure, today’s 

SHSP would tie strategies to three of the four Safety E’s:34

• Engineering – have proper clear zones and shielding, rumble strips, or barriers

• Enforcement – manage speeds through enforcement

• Education – perform outreach on innovations such as high friction surface treatments or the 

importance of heeding advisory speeds

A Safe System-based SHSP could reimagine that same emphasis area within the framework of the five 

elements to become the overarching framework of the SHSP emphasis area strategies: 

• Safe Road Users – perform outreach through educational programs on how to safely regain the 

roadway 

• Safe Vehicles – implement infrastructure-to-vehicle communication to support lane departure 

assist

• Safe Speeds – set speed limits based on roadway context and the human body’s ability to tolerate 

crash forces 

• Safe Roads – have proper warning treatments and delineation, as well as clear zones and 

shielding

• Post-Crash Care – provide infrastructure to support emergency services equipment at crash sites

for quick response and proper triage (this is especially important in rural communities)

Perform Safe System Assessment: States could retain their emphasis area structures, but perform a Safe 

System assessment to determine how well an emphasis area aligns with the Safe System elements and 

principles, and make adjustments as necessary. Each State could perform this assessment as it transitions

its SHSP to a Safe System approach. Parties responsible for each emphasis area would identify which Safe 

34 Defined as engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical services. 
26 

System principle or element is addressed by their action items so they have a balance across the 

principles and elements as part of a shared responsibility approach. 

By reframing the SHSP, States would have a better roadmap for pivoting to the Safe System approach and

creating a focus on the six core principles, such as planning for human mistakes and creating redundancy 

in the roadway system. Stakeholder collaboration would need to be thoughtfully managed to keep 

engagement high while also shifting to more effective and measurable actions. 

Noteworthy Practice: Washington State SHSP Includes “Safe Systems Approach” Chapter

Washington State’s 2019 SHSP35 draws a direct connection between the roadway safety strategy 

the State is undertaking and Safe System principles. Inclusion of this section goes beyond 

acknowledging Safe System principles—the State has adopted strategies to implement these 

principles, including:

• Develop and implement speed management policy, guidelines, and professional training 

focused on injury minimization

• Complete infrastructure connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists and make progress 

toward providing separation where needed based on crash exposure, crash history, and 

characteristics of the roadway and adjacent land use associated with higher levels of use36

States considering adopting this noteworthy practice should consider integrating the Safe 

System principles and elements throughout their SHSPs. 

2. Commit to a “Zero” Goal and Establish Performance Management Strategies

Adopting an SHSP goal of zero deaths and serious injuries encourages States to acknowledge the Safe 

System principle that “death and serious injury are unacceptable.” The zero deaths goal should be present 

throughout the entire SHSP, and the top priority during implementation. The focus of the SHSP should be 

on a reduction to zero. For example, “Oregon envisions no deaths or life-changing injuries on Oregon’s 

transportation system by 2035”37 is a more precise goal than “toward zero deaths.” Using plain and direct 

language to state the “zero” goal helps to align the SHSP with the Safe System principle that death and 

serious injury are unacceptable.

The SHSP also provides the opportunity to establish leadership reinforcement that death and serious 

injury are unacceptable within each State. Once precise goals of achieving zero deaths and serious injuries 

35 Washington Traffic Safety Commission, Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2019 (2019), 

http://targetzero.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/TargetZero2019_Lo-Res.pdf. 

36 Washington Traffic Safety Commission, Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2019 (2019), 203, 

http://targetzero.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/TargetZero2019_Lo-Res.pdf. 

37 FHWA, “Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Database Search,” 

https://rspcb.safety.fhwa.dot.gov/shspsearch/statesearch.aspx. 
27

have been set, State safety leaders can show buy-in for these goals through media, public events, and 

support for related policies and programs.

Noteworthy Practice: Massachusetts Adopts a “Zero” Goal in Alignment

with Safe System Principles

As part of its SHSP, each State can adopt a goal of zero deaths and serious injuries, which

recognizes the Safe System principle that serious injuries and loss of life are unacceptable. The 

following statement is from the 2018 Massachusetts SHSP:

“Every Life Counts: Between 2012 and 2016, 1,820 people lost their lives and 15,662 were 

seriously injured on Massachusetts roadways. It is imperative that we look at each of these 

deaths and serious injuries as more than a statistic. We must view the loss of life as 

unacceptable, and work toward zero deaths and serious injuries on our roadways.”38

According to the International Transport Forum, “Set targets must be regularly monitored and backed by 

an agreed and fully funded package of interventions that are selected based on evidence of the results 

they can be expected to produce.”39 Implementing a more robust performance management approach 

can help keep States on track in achieving a Safe System. A performance-based approach focuses not just 

on commitment, but also on accountability through goal setting and tracking. A more robust approach 

could include the following strategies:

• Backcasting to establish the rate of decrease in fatalities and serious injuries needed to achieve 

zero by the target year. This approach will allow States to show the level of investments necessary 

to reach long-term goals. The backcasting can be applied to specific strategies within the SHSP, 

such as each of the Safe System elements.

• A monitoring process to measure against the backcasting trend and force intervention changes if 

States are not on track. 

• Apply a proactive approach in the SHSP, including the use of systemic profiles, roadway and 

roadside condition, and modal specific condition assessments (e.g., bicycle network stress or 

distance between marked crossings).

• Establish key performance indicators (KPIs). According to the European Commission, “KPIs can 

give a more complete picture of the level of road safety and can detect the emergence of 

problems at an early stage, before they result in accidents.”40 These key performance indicators 

could be tied to each of the five Safe System elements or a particular strategy.

38 Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Massachusetts Strategic Highway Safety Plan (2018), 1, 

https://www.mass.gov/doc/massachusetts-shsp-2018/download. 

39 ITF, Zero Road Deaths and Serious Injuries (2016), 61, http://www.towardszerofoundation.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/10/Zero_road_deaths-SafeSystems.pdf. 

40 European Commission, Road Safety Strategies and Action Plans in the EU (January 2018), 

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/sites/roadsafety/files/nl29_en.pdf. 
28 

What Is Backcasting and How Does it Apply to a Safe System Approach to Transportation Safety? 

Taking from a planning method of system conditions for sustainability developed by Karl-Henrik Robèrt

of The Natural Step, backcasting defines a desirable future and then works backward to identify policies 

and programs that will connect that specified future to the present.41 Backcasting can be a forecasting 

approach through SHSPs to achieve a goal of zero fatalities and serious injuries by determining 

independent variables that might exist to determine what actions need to be taken to get there. 

Backcasting applies the Safe System principle that transportation safety should be proactive, not 

reactive, and responsibility is shared. Backcasting in transportation safety has been effective in reducing 

serious injuries and fatalities in Sweden and the United Kingdom.42

How Can KPIs Be Used to Work toward Zero Road Fatalities in a Safe System Approach?

In June 2019, the European Commission published EU Road Safety Policy Framework 2021-2030 - Next 

steps towards "Vision Zero” including key guidance on how to use KPIs as performance measures in 

achieving Vision Zero using a Safe System approach. This report establishes KPIs through networkwide 

safety rating required under new European Union rules (first completed assessment expected by the

end of 2024). This report highlights that:

“To measure progress, the most basic – and important – indicators are of course the result 

indicators on deaths and serious injuries, which will continue to be monitored closely. But as 

the Safe System approach relies on gaining a much clearer understanding of the different 

issues that influence overall safety performance, the Commission has elaborated, in close 

cooperation with Member State experts, a first set of key performance indicators...”

The report provides more detail on the use of KPIs through Safe System approach to achieving Vision 

Zero, but a key note established is that “a KPI for road infrastructure should show the safety quality of a 

road network independent of road user behavior or vehicle technology.”43

3. Refocus Speeding Emphasis Area on Speed Management

and Roadway Design

State SHSPs should refocus on speed management and roadway design changes, rather than relying only 

on education and enforcement strategies to address speeding emphasis areas in the SHSP. This may 

include more emphasis on designing roads and setting speed limits systemically to achieve a target 

41 J. Holmberg and K-H Robèrt, "Backcasting from Non-overlapping Sustainability Principles – a Framework for 

Strategic Planning," International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 7 (2000): 291-308.

42 John Whitelegg and Gary Haq, Vision Zero: Adopting a Target of Zero for Road Traffic Fatalities and Serious Injuries

(Stockholm Environment Institute: 2006), 

https://mediamanager.sei.org/documents/Publications/Future/vision_zero_FinalReportMarch06.pdf. 43 European Commission, EU Road Safety Policy Framework (2019): 5-10. 

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/sites/roadsafety/files/1_en_document_travail_service_part1_v2.pdf. 
29

speed. A target speed is “the highest speed at which vehicles should operate on a thoroughfare in a 

specific context, consistent with the level of multimodal activity generated by adjacent land uses, to 

provide both mobility for motor vehicles and a safe environment for pedestrians, bicyclists, and public 

transit users.”44 Using roadway design to reduce speeding related crashes applies the Safe System 

principles that humans are vulnerable, responsibility is shared, and redundancy is critical. SHSPs should 

identify approaches to address speed-related serious crashes even when drivers are not exceeding the 

speed limit. States should understand speed issues through the lens of all five Safe System elements, 

especially safe speeds. Recognizing and refocusing protection of vulnerable users to serious injury and 

fatality due to kinetic energy transfer, such as pedestrians and bicyclists, in the SHSPs can help align this 

emphasis area category with Safe System principles.

When updating State SHSPs, State DOTs can reflect the urgency of recommendations included in the 

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) speed report. As seen in figure 7, even relatively low speeds 

can result in death or serious injury unless the vehicle and the road environment take account of the 

physical vulnerability of all road users. 

Figure 7. Graph. Relationship between fatality risk and impact speed. (Source: FHWA) 

State SHSPs should address designing for safe speeds and speed management to make progress toward 

zero fatality goals that many States have adopted. States can use Federal resources, such as the NTSB 

report and FHWA speed management guidance, as the basis for this change. States can include speed 

management as a primary focus of future SHSPs and consider including speed management principles in 

all projects. Every SHSP addresses speeding, but HSIP funding is often spent on mitigations for crashes 

associated with roadway departures, intersection conflicts, and pedestrian facility deficiencies because 

44 Institute of Transportation Engineers, ITE Recommended Practice on Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A 

Context Sensitive Approach (2010), https://www.ite.org/pub/?id=E1CFF43C-2354-D714-51D9-D82B39D4DBAD. 
30 

data analysis based on crash reports points in this direction. However, speed and kinetic energy transfer 

are typically the key elements of fatalities and serious injuries, even if speeding is not identified as the 

primary violation. Shifting the focus to the most severe aspect of crashes, and addressing behavior change 

through infrastructure improvements, helps to align with the shared responsibility Safe System principle. 

Although speeding and vulnerable users are common emphasis areas in SHSPs, the current FHWA 

categorization of emphasis areas may not always allow States to embrace issues related to the kinetic 

energy transfer at high speeds that support this principle. According to the SHSP database, most States 

address speed issues from the perspective of speeding and driver behavior, and many States group the 

speeding emphasis area with the aggressive driving emphasis area.

45 Accordingly, most strategies that 

address these emphasis areas focus on education and enforcement, rather than how roadway design 

could help reduce speeding or speeds. Refocusing this emphasis area around speed management and 

roadway design, and recognizing that speed-related serious crashes happen even when drivers are not 

exceeding the speed limit, can help States understand speed issues through the lens of all five Safe 

System elements. 

While the focus to address speed in a Safe System points to investment in strategies that redesign the 

roadway for safer speeds, an opportunity exists to further investigate the role of strategies, such as speedlimit-setting methodologies, beyond the 85th percentile and automated speed enforcement. The FHWA 

and States can work together to support research that investigates how speed limit setting and 

automated enforcement strategies can be used as an interim tool to help support a Safe System 

approach. 

45 WRI, A Vision and Guidance for Zero Road Deaths (2018), https://www.wri.org/publication/sustainable-and-safevision-and-guidance-zero-road-deaths.
31

Noteworthy Practice: City of Sacramento, California, Focuses Speed Efforts

on Roadway Design

As part of its 2018 Vision Zero Action Plan, Sacramento identified roadway design as the primary 

tool, in alignment with enforcement efforts, in reducing fatal crashes that occurred at high 

speeds—regardless of whether the cause of the crash was speeding. The plan also makes clear the 

connection between crash severity and speed, even in cases where the posted speed limit is 

deemed to be reasonable (e.g., 30 miles per hour [mph]). States can take a similar approach to the 

speed emphasis area in their SHSPs and refocus on how roadway design impacts operating speed 

and ultimately crash severity outcomes. The following is from the Sacramento Vision Zero Action 

Plan:

“Speed Kills: A major component of Vision Zero is the recognition that speed kills. Research 

compiled by the U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration shows that the likelihood of fatality is 5 percent for a pedestrian struck by a 

vehicle traveling at 20 miles per hour, but the likelihood increases to 40 percent at 30 miles per 

hour and to 100 percent at 50 miles per hour. 

By just designing our streets differently, we can lower the speeds at which vehicles travel to 

help reduce the severity of injuries. Street design changes, combined with public education and 

targeted enforcement efforts, have the potential to greatly reduce the number of people 

seriously injured or killed on Sacramento’s streets.”46

46 City of Sacramento, Vision Zero Sacramento: Action Plan (August 2018), https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-

/media/Corporate/Files/Public-Works/Transportation/VisionZero/Vision-Zero-Action-Plan-Adopted-August2018.pdf?la=en.
32 

4. Institutionalize Equity in Road Safety Work

The focus on equity in roadway safety work is growing. Equity in transportation safety should include 

protecting populations that are traditionally underserved; a systemic approach ensuring safe and fair 

transportation options; and ensuring all road users have a safe route and access to basic community 

services regardless of age, income, or race. Consider the following American road safety statistics: 

• American Indians and Alaska Natives are injured or killed in motor vehicle crashes at much higher 

rates than other Americans47

• The fatality rate for Hispanic bicyclists is 23 percent higher than for white bicyclists48 

• Black people are twice as likely as white people to be killed while walking49 

Institutionalizing equity in the SHSP process means embracing the Safe System principle that safety must 

be proactive—we must proactively work to address the inequities built into the current transportation 

system to keep vulnerable members of the community safe. An equitable transportation system is a key 

feature of a Safe System.

Equity refers to the fairness with which impacts—both benefits and costs—are distributed. Transportation 

equity means fairness within both the planning process and its outcomes, such as authentic engagement 

and resulting service improvements or infrastructure investments. Equity also extends to our individual 

perceptions about process and outcomes, and valuing those perceptions, particularly when voiced by 

populations that are traditionally underserved, including but not limited to individuals in at least one of 

the following categories:50

• Low-income

• Minority

• Elderly

• Children

• Limited English proficiency 

• Persons with disabilities

47 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Tribal Road Safety,” page last updated November 14, 2016, 

https://www.cdc.gov/features/tribalprograms/index.html. 

48 The League of American Bicyclists, The New Majority, retrieved from 

https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/equity_report.pdf.

49 Safe Routes to School National Partnership, At the Intersection of Active Transportation and Equity, retrieved from 

https://www.saferoutespartnership.org/sites/default/files/resource_files/at-the-intersection-of-activetransportation-and-equity.pdf. 

50 FHWA, Environmental Justice, Title VI, Non-Discrimination, and Equity, retrieved from 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/environmental_justice/equity/
33

Opportunities for States to address equity within the framework of SHSPs include:

• Clearly define equity in the SHSP and include equity considerations throughout the emphasis 

areas and strategies

• Incorporate equity considerations in implementation and assessment plans, such as goals related 

to safety improvements for populations that are traditionally underserved

• Investigate and document the impacts of traffic safety enforcement and traffic safety surveillance 

on minority communities 

• Consider equity implications of traffic safety enforcement activities

• Develop restorative justice strategies to address harm done to traditionally underserved 

populations through road safety policies, programs, and disinvestment

• Meaningfully engage populations that are traditionally underserved in shared decision-making for 

the SHSP and subsequent safety programs, policies, or infrastructure projects

• Encourage or require local jurisdictions to engage traditionally underserved populations for HSIP 

infrastructure projects

• Encourage or require local jurisdictions to include equity metrics in project prioritization for HSIP

• Develop and implement strategies for robust demographic data collection in crash reporting, and 

include summaries of these data in the SHSP

• Expand the focus and quality of the data we collect and how we analyze it (see the following 

section for additional detail) 

Noteworthy Practice: State of New Jersey Includes Equity in SHSP

As part of its 2020 SHSP, the State of New Jersey included equity as one of the 5 E’s of safety in 

addition to engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical services/emergency 

response. The following is from the New Jersey 2020 SHSP: 

“This plan prioritizes equity in highway safety. To this end, and for the first time, we created an 

emphasis area team that is dedicated to ensuring that all strategies and activities emanating 

from this plan fairly and equitably consider all users and communities, particularly those that 

are historically disadvantaged, such as minority populations, economically depressed 

communities, and those that are differently abled.”51

5. Use Proactive Data Collection and Analysis Approaches

to Address Equity Considerations

The data-driven approach of the SHSP does not have to end with crash data. Incorporating innovative 

data methods and a focus on identifying risk factors, such as roadway or contextual variables, can help 

support a proactive approach to data analysis and evaluation while also uncovering the potential for 

inequitable safety outcomes. Shifting the focus to data collection and analysis methods that are less 

51 New Jersey Department of Transportation, New Jersey 2020 Strategic Highway Safety Plan, retrieved from 

https://www.saferoadsforallnj.com/resources. 
34 

reliant solely on historic crash records helps to align with the Safe System principle that safety is proactive. 

Opportunities to highlight the proactive approach to address equity in the SHSP include:

• Connecting each emphasis area to roadway or contextual safety contributing factors, such as the 

disproportionate number of fatalities and serious injuries among pedestrians in communities of 

color,

52 and recognizing this specific factor for pedestrian crashes—higher rates of crashes in 

minority communities—where transportation system gaps (e.g., sidewalks/bike lanes/crossing 

opportunities) can help proactively inform recommendations of the SHSP. 

• Using innovative data collection and analysis approaches, such as crowdsourcing or video 

detection data, to identify emphasis areas related to near misses or crashes previously unreported 

by vulnerable communities. FHWA can further explore opportunities for near-miss or other 

innovative data to be used to support SHSP data driven problem identification. 

• Providing support from FHWA to help in standardizing these proactive data collection and 

analysis methodologies for States. 

Noteworthy Practice: Innovative Data Analysis to Uncover Inequitable Safety Outcomes for 

Native Populations in Washington State

As part of its 2019 SHSP, Washington has included a section of safety outcomes within the Native 

American community.

53 By analyzing race and ethnicity crash data, the State found that American 

Indian and Alaska Native residents have, by far, the highest rate of traffic fatalities. By incorporating 

this analysis and evaluation into the State’s identification of emphasis areas, Washington is able to 

structure a proactive approach to addressing these inequities. 

Noteworthy Practice: SafeTREC Street Story Tool

Crash data are often incomplete and may include biases. By definition, near misses are not included in 

this data set. Crashes may go unreported for a variety of reasons. For example, members of vulnerable 

communities, such as undocumented immigrants, are increasingly reluctant to call police for help.54

To combat issues of crash underreporting, looking beyond the crash data set can help to identify 

safety issues that may have otherwise been missed. The Street Story tool SafeTREC, developed by the 

University of California, Berkeley, is one of the options for gathering and analyzing additional data. 

Community members can use the tool to document locations where there are known safety issues, 

where people have experienced near misses, or where a crash happened but went unreported.

Communities throughout California are using this tool to engage residents and collect this important 

data. 

52 Safe Routes to School National Partnership, At the Intersection of Active Transportation and Equity, retrieved from 

https://www.saferoutespartnership.org/sites/default/files/resource_files/at-the-intersection-of-activetransportation-and-equity.pdf. 

53 Washington Traffic Safety Commission, Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2019 (2019), 126, 

http://targetzero.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/TargetZero2019_Lo-Res.pdf. 

54 American Civil Liberties Union, Freezing Out Justice (2018), https://www.aclu.org/report/freezing-out-justice. 
35

Summary

This chapter outlined the following opportunities for aligning the State SHSP with the Safe System 

approach: 

1. Organize the SHSP around Safe System six core principles and five elements 

2. Commit to a “zero” goal and establish performance management strategies

3. Refocus speeding emphasis area on speed management and roadway design

4. Institutionalize equity in road safety work

5. Use proactive data collection and analysis approaches to address equity considerations

These opportunities represent initial steps that FHWA, States, and their partners can take to strengthen 

commitments to Safe System principles, with a particular emphasis on eliminating fatal and serious injury 

crashes through renewed emphasis on safe speeds and an equitable approach. The opportunities to 

organize future SHSPs around the Safe System approach can help to support and advance the other three 

opportunities. 

Federal, State, and local partners responsible for roadway safety can consider the following questions, 

where applicable, as a first step to identify State-specific opportunities to move toward a Safe System

through the SHSP: 

• Does my State’s SHSP recognize the Safe System approach?

• How do the emphasis areas within my State’s SHSP align with Safe System elements and 

principles?

• Are there opportunities to strengthen the language used in my State’s SHSP vision or goal to 

address elimination of fatalities and serious injuries?

• Will the SHSP strategies and actions help us reach our long-term safety goals? 

• What performance management strategies can we implement to hold ourselves accountable for 

achieving our goals?

• Is my State or jurisdiction focused more on speeding rather than designing roadways for safe 

speeds?

• Is my State or jurisdiction addressing equity considerations in our safety planning efforts?

The following chapter explores opportunities for aligning State HSIPs with the Safe System approach.
36 

Integrating Safe System

with State HSIPs 

Overview 

The foundation of each State’s HSIP is a roadway safety management (RSM) process, which includes:

• Problem identification

• Countermeasure identification (includes diagnosis, countermeasure selection, 

and economic appraisal)

• Project prioritization

• Evaluation

According to FHWA’s Highway Safety Improvement Program Manual, “The SHSP influences decisions 

made during each step of the State HSIP process.”55 Thus, emphasis areas and strategies defined in the 

SHSP inform development and selection of viable safety projects in the State’s HSIP process. These 

projects include infrastructure countermeasures that are strategies in the SHSP. The results of 

implementing and evaluating the HSIP in turn inform future SHSP and HSIP planning efforts. The graphic 

in figure 8 illustrates the relationship among the SHSP and HSIP. 

Figure 8. Illustration. Relationship among HSIP. State HSIP. and State SHSP. (Source: FHWA)

55 FHWA, Highway Safety Improvement Program Manual, FHWA-SA-09-029 (January 2010), 1–11, 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/resources/fhwasa09029/fhwasa09029.pdf. 
37

Within the parameters laid out by the HSIP regulation, States develop their own processes for planning, 

implementing, and evaluating highway safety improvement projects (23 CFR Part 924.7). 

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) (119 

Stat. 1144 Pub. L. 109–59, August 10, 2005) switched the focus of the Federal safety program to reducing 

fatalities and serious injuries. The scope of States’ safety programs changed as a result of this switch. In 

addition to reactive improvements at high crash locations, some States introduced proactive 

improvements based on the presence of factors believed to contribute to crash occurrence or injury 

severity levels at other like locations (the systemic approach to safety). 

The following sections demonstrate how the State HSIP process aligns with Safe System principles, as well 

as opportunities and noteworthy practices to advance implementation of Safe System in the States’ HSIP. 

Alignment of Safe System Principles with Major State HSIP Features

The RSM aspect of the State HSIP program forms a strong basis from which to integrate the Safe System 

approach, as an RSM is a primary component of implementing Safe System in other countries. As shown 

in table 3, most steps in the HSIP process are somewhat aligned with Safe System principles. 

Table 3. Safe System alignment with State HSIP major program features. 

Problem Identification

Safety programs and projects are based on a robust, data-driven process, based on historic crash patterns and a 

proactive assessment of the factors with the potential to lead to future crashes.

Safe System 

Principle 

Alignment Rationale 

Death/Serious 

Injury Is 

Unacceptable

While some States focus on fatal and serious injury crashes for network 

screening, this practice is not consistent across all States. A primary 

reason is because many predictive methods (e.g., safety performance 

functions) are focused on total crashes, not fatal and serious injury 

crashes. Additionally, some States are fortunate to have a small number 

of fatal and serious injury crashes, creating sample size issues. 

Humans Make 

Mistakes

The HSIP problem identification approach can uncover roadway safety 

issues related to human mistakes, but planning for human mistakes is not 

inherent in this program feature. 

Humans Are

Vulnerable

The HSIP problem identification approach can uncover roadway safety 

issues related to human vulnerability, but addressing vulnerability is not 

inherent in this program feature.

Responsibility Is 

Shared

Problem identification under the current HSIP process does not 

necessitate shared responsibility. 
38 

Safe System 

Principle

Alignment Rationale

Safety Is Proactive Most States use systemic analysis and implementation methods to widely 

deploy improvements based on roadway features that analysis has shown 

in similar situations are contributing to specific serious crash types, even 

though the location may not currently have a location-specific crash 

history. Supplementing traditional analyses with systemic techniques is 

consistent with the Safe System approach described in this report. The 

systemic approach has both reactive and proactive components, and it 

should be used in addition to the hot-spot approach.

Redundancy Is 

Crucial 

Problem identification under the current HSIP process does not 

necessitate a redundant system. 

Full Alignment Partial Alignment Minimal Alignment/Not Applicable

 
39

Countermeasure Identification

Identify proven safety countermeasures that address the specific crash patterns and factors present, with a 

focus on reducing fatal and serious injury crashes. 

Safe System Principle Alignment Rationale 

Death/Serious Injury 

Is Unacceptable

Targeting fatal and serious injury crashes with countermeasure solutions 

is central to the development of a Safe System and the State HSIP. While 

most States use crash modification factors (CMFs) to assess the expected 

benefits of potential countermeasures, there are limited CMFs available 

for fatal and serious injury crashes. 

Humans Make 

Mistakes

According to the International Transport Forum, in the behavioral 

approach, human error is seen as the primary cause of traffic crashes.56

A very different view emerges when crashes are investigated from a Safe 

System lens in which the needs, limitations, and capacities of the road 

users are integrated in the traffic system. While human factors should be 

a primary factor in countermeasure identification, it is not consistently 

applied across the States. 

Humans Are 

Vulnerable

Continuing research to support development of CMFs for 

countermeasures focused on vulnerable road users is key to ensure that 

safety projects addressing vulnerable users are funded and 

implemented. It is also important that roadsides are adequately 

protected, and speeds managed for the benefit all road users, rather 

than at the expense of some.

Responsibility Is

Shared

Responsibility for countermeasure identification, implementation, 

funding, management, and maintenance can be shared by everyone 

responsible for roadway safety, but shared responsibility is not inherent 

in this program feature.

Safety Is Proactive Countermeasures can be identified through a proactive process that 

relies on systemic analysis, but countermeasures can also be identified 

through a reactive process.

Redundancy Is Crucial Countermeasure identification can focus on redundancy in the

transportation system, but it is not a required component of this 

program feature. Additional redundancy can be introduced into 

countermeasure selection and prioritization steps of the HSIP process.

Full Alignment Partial Alignment Minimal Alignment/Not Applicable

56 ITF, Zero Road Deaths and Serious Injuries (2016), http://www.towardszerofoundation.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/10/Zero_road_deaths-SafeSystems.pdf.
40 

Project Prioritization

Prioritization methods include benefit/cost analysis, ranking, and optimization approaches.

Safe System Principle Alignment Rationale 

Death/Serious Injury 

Is Unacceptable

Many States use benefit-cost analysis that focus on all crashes, not just 

fatal and serious injury crashes. There is limited research and data to 

support countermeasure efficacy focused on the most severe crashes, so 

this limits a State’s ability to include only fatal and serious injury crashes 

in benefit-cost analysis. 

Humans Make 

Mistakes

Projects can be prioritized based on how well they incorporate the 

assumption of human mistakes, but this is not mandated as part of the 

HSIP process.

Humans Are 

Vulnerable

Projects can be prioritized based on how well they account for human 

vulnerability. For example, fatal and serious injury crashes are weighted 

more heavily than other crashes in the benefit-cost analysis. However, 

CMFs—another key component of the benefit-cost analysis—often 

account for all crashes, including property damage crashes where human 

vulnerability is not a factor.

Responsibility Is

Shared

Projects can be prioritized based on how well they incorporate shared 

responsibility for roadway safety, but this is not mandated as part of the 

HSIP process.

Safety Is Proactive It can be challenging for agencies to prioritize systemic projects using 

benefit cost analysis due to lack of crash history. 

Redundancy Is Crucial Projects can be prioritized based on how well they incorporate system 

redundancy, but it is not mandated as part of the HSIP process. 

Full Alignment Partial Alignment Minimal Alignment/Not Applicable
41

Evaluation

The evaluation process reveals if the overall program has been successful in reaching performance goals 

established in the planning process, including its effectiveness in reducing the number of fatalities and serious 

injuries.

Safe System Principle Alignment Rationale 

Death/Serious Injury 

Is Unacceptable

Evaluation focuses on benchmarking against safety targets specific to 

fatalities and serious injuries. However, while many States have 

advanced in this area over the past 10 years, opportunities remain for 

States to do more and better evaluation. 

Humans Make 

Mistakes

Human error is not a component in the evaluation process.

Humans Are 

Vulnerable

Human vulnerability is not a component in the evaluation process.

Responsibility Is 

Shared

Responsibility for evaluating countermeasure and strategy success can 

be shared across many different parties responsible for roadway safety, 

but shared responsibility is not inherent in this program feature.

Safety Is Proactive Valuable insights gained in the evaluation process are fed back into the

road safety decision-making process to allow for proactive roadway 

safety changes.

Redundancy Is Crucial Evaluation of the States’ HSIP to assess redundancy can be part of this 

program feature, but is not explicitly stated as a key component. 

Full Alignment Partial Alignment Minimal Alignment/Not Applicable

Collectively, the State HSIP major program features partially address each of the Safe System principles. 

Specifically, HSIP evaluation fully addresses the principle that Deaths and Serious Injuries Are 

Unacceptable, and HSIP countermeasure identification fully addresses the principle that Humans Are 

Vulnerable. Problem identification does not directly address Responsibility Is Shared or Redundancy Is 

Crucial, but the HSIP does address these principles later in the process as States identify potential 

solutions to address the problem locations. Similarly, HSIP evaluation does not directly address the Safe 

System principles that Human Make Mistakes or Humans Are Vulnerable; however, if these principles were 

addressed earlier in the HSIP process then it will be reflected in the safety performance outcomes. While 

partial alignment with the Safe System principles is a step in the right direction, there are additional 

opportunities to further integrate the Safe System principles in the States’ HSIPs. 
42

Opportunities and Noteworthy Practices

The following opportunities and noteworthy practices illustrate key considerations that can enable 

practitioners to holistically integrate the Safe System approach into the State HSIP. 

1. Research, Prioritize, and Fund Engineering Countermeasures

That Address Safe System Elements and Principles

1A. Hierarchy of Controls

The States and FHWA, through the HSIP, can evaluate and prioritize countermeasures that align with Safe 

System principles. Using the Hierarchy of Controls, shown in figure 9, as a framework, the 

countermeasures most aligned with the Safe System principle to eliminate death and serious injury would 

fall within the Elimination category, with the aim of physically removing the roadway safety hazard.57

These countermeasures should be prioritized for implementation first. Through updated research 

available in the CMF Clearinghouse, FHWA could support States in performing evaluations to identify 

countermeasures that fall within this Elimination category.58 

Figure 9. Illustration. Hierarchy of Controls for Traffic Safety. 

(Source: Washington Traffic Safety Commission)

57 Washington Traffic Safety Commission, Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2019, 

http://targetzero.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/TargetZero2019_Lo-Res.pdf. 

58 FHWA, Crash Modification Clearinghouse, CMFs last added August 14, 2020, http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/.
43

Noteworthy Practice: Australia Assesses Countermeasures for Alignment

with Safe System Principles

In its report, The Safe System Hierarchy of Control Framework for Local Roads, for the 2016 

Australasian Road Safety Conference, the Australian Road Research Board (ARRB) Group proposed a 

framework for evaluating countermeasures under the Hierarchy of Controls, as shown in Table 4.

59

This concept placed an emphasis on removing the roadway safety hazard, in alignment with the 

Safe System principle of eliminating deaths and serious injury.

Table 4. Australia Hierarchy of Control Countermeasure Framework. 

(Source: ARRB Group)

Hierarchy Risk Control 

Method

Effect of Control Example

1 Remove the 

risk

Remove the hazard from 

the road and traffic 

environment

• Remove a tree or utility pole from the 

roadside area

• Grade separated pedestrian crossings

• Fully separated cycleway

2 Reduce the 

risk

Replace one hazard with 

another, less severe and 

more controllable, hazard

Physically separate road 

users from the hazard to 

minimize road user 

interaction with it, or 

modify the design of the 

road infrastructure to 

reduce road user 

interaction with the 

hazard and/or assist road 

user control

• Road safety barrier

• Roundabout (replacing priority controlled 

cross or T-intersection)

• Wide median or verge area with or without 

a safety barrier

• Traffic signal control pedestrian crossings

• Off-road cycleway

• Increase lane and sealed shoulder width

• Improve delineation of the carriageway

• Provide pedestrian crossing with refuge 

island

• On-road cycleway and shared zones

• Improve the Australian New Car 

Assessment Program (ANCAP) rating of 

vehicle fleet

3 Change road 

user 

behavior

Provide warning/advice to 

seek appropriate behavior

• Curve warning/speed advisory signs

• Reduced speed limit and school zone alert 

signing

• Vehicle safety features such as speed 

alerts, lane departure warning, blind-spot 

monitoring, etc.

• Enforcement, education, and training

4 Protect the 

road user

Use equipment to protect 

users from death/injury

• Seat belts, anti-lock braking system (ABS), 

electronic stability control (ESC), automatic 

emergency braking (AEB)

• Pedestrian airbags and bonnet designs

• Replace a rigid lighting pole with a 

frangible pole

59 D. McTiernan and A. Rensen, “The Safe System Hierarchy of Control Framework for Local Roads,“ in Australasian 

Road Safety Conference (Canberra, ACT, Australia: September 2016). 
44 

1B. Primary and Supporting Countermeasures

Within the Hierarchy of Controls framework, Australia also defines primary and supportive road safety 

treatments. There is an opportunity for packages of countermeasures to be considered together in project 

prioritization, allowing for primary and supporting countermeasures to be prioritized on the basis of 

introducing redundancy. Primary treatments represent an important step toward a Safe System, and 

supportive treatments provide incremental safety gains but not to a level that would create a Safe 

System.60 Defining a priority list of Safe System strategies that fits within the Hierarchy of Controls and 

falls within a primary or supporting countermeasure category could be a useful tool to support HSIP 

countermeasure identification and project prioritization. 

Noteworthy Practice: Australia Categorizes Countermeasures as Primary and Supporting

In its Safe System Roads for Local Government report, Austroads proposed a framework for 

evaluating countermeasures as either primary for supporting a Safe System and achieving zero 

death and serious injuries, or as supporting that approach.61 Table 5 highlights primary and 

supporting countermeasures for reducing speeds at intersections. 

Table 5. Australia primary and supporting countermeasure framework. 

(Source: ARRB Group) 

Treatment Type Road 

Environment

Expected 

Costs

Safe 

Speeds 

Safe Roads 

and 

Roadsides

Safe 

Road 

Users

Safe 

Vehicles

Innovative 

(New 

Concept in 

Australia)

Primary Installing 

roundabout

Speed 

reduction/ 

crash severity

Urban/rural $$$ 🗸 🗸

Supporting Speed 

cameras

Enforcement Urban/rural $$ 🗸 🗸

Intersection 

raised 

platforms

Speed 

reduction

Urban $$ 🗸 🗸

Turn to red 

if speeding

Enforcement/ 

speed 

reduction

Urban/rural $ 🗸 🗸 🗸

Rest-on-red Separation/ 

speed 

reduction

Urban $ 🗸 🗸 🗸

60 Austroads, Safe System Roads for Local Government (April 2106), https://austroads.com.au/publications/roadsafety/ap-r518-16/media/AP-R518-16_Safe_System_Roads_for_Local_Government.pdf. 

61 Austroads, Safe System Roads for Local Government (2016). 
45

Treatment Type Road 

Environment

Expected 

Costs

Safe 

Speeds 

Safe Roads 

and 

Roadsides

Safe 

Road 

Users

Safe 

Vehicles

Innovative 

(New 

Concept in 

Australia)

Transverse 

rumble 

strips

Speed 

reduction

Urban/rural $ 🗸 🗸 🗸 🗸

Restriction 

of sight 

distance

Speed 

reduction

Urban/rural $ 🗸 🗸 🗸

Decrease in 

speed limit 

unrestricted 

to a speed 

limit

100-80 

km/h

80-60 km/h

60-50 km/h

Speed 

reduction

Urban/rural $ 🗸 🗸 🗸

1C. Beyond Traditional Countermeasures

Although the HSIP program focuses on engineering, all five Safe System elements (i.e., safe roads, safe 

vehicles, safe speeds, safe road users, and post-crash care) and the Safe System principles can be 

integrated more holistically. Because none of these elements are sufficient on their own, the entire 

transportation network becomes safer when they are taken into consideration and implemented as a 

whole. Each State HSIP should address Safe System elements and principles in a coordinated and systemic 

manner, and not in silos. This can be accomplished by broadening the focus of engineering 

countermeasures to include roadway design or control elements that specifically support each Safe 

System element. This approach looks to provide a buffer or redundancy in the system that can reduce the 

level of severity when a crash does occur. For example, engineering countermeasures can be identified 

that influence behavior change and account for human limitations, prioritize emergency response for 

timely and high-quality post-crash care, and provide supportive infrastructure for safer connected and 

autonomous vehicles. 

There are additional opportunities to incorporate human factor research (i.e., applying psychological and 

physiological principles to engineering and design) into the problem identification process. States can 

consider using equity considerations in project prioritization through the HSIP, with a change to benefitcost analysis or through a set-aside program.

Changing countermeasure evaluation methods to primarily focus on fatal and serious injury crash 

reduction opportunities can help refocus this evaluation system on the Safe System principle that deaths 

and serious injuries are unacceptable. This same approach could be applied to network screening 

methodologies and benefit/cost ratio calculations, because including only the most serious injury crashes 

may result in a project prioritization different from when all crashes are factored in the calculation. It is 

also important to consider the role of vehicle safety advancements, like backup cameras and blind spot 

monitoring sensors, in shaping the severity of crashes. Due to these advancements, we may see shifting 
46 

patterns in the most severe collisions, pointing to the importance of the systemic approach to analysis 

where the highest risk roadway and contextual factors are identified. 

Below are examples of how to integrate Safe System principles and elements into countermeasure 

selection:

• Humans make mistakes: This principle assumes people will make mistakes; therefore, the 

transportation system should be designed to minimize the opportunity for mistakes and also to 

be forgiving so that mistakes do not lead to fatal outcomes. The HSIP should identify 

opportunities to lessen the opportunity for road users to make mistakes (e.g. intersection designs 

that reduce conflict points), as well as incorporate shared responsibility and design redundancy in 

the system to prevent crashes. This principle is currently integrated into some road infrastructure 

safety strategies, such as roadway departure, but should be done systemically and by 

understanding crash causation to achieve a Safe System approach. The first priority to avoid 

roadway departures is to keep vehicles on the road. Once vehicles have left the travel lane, the 

second priority is to provide an opportunity for the vehicle to safely reenter the travel way (i.e., 

safe recovery.) And lastly, the goal is to minimize the severity if roadway departure crashes do 

occur. 

• Safe vehicles: Accelerating technology means carefully embracing and promoting technical 

innovations that can help us get "smarter"—in tech-speak—when it comes to safety. Within the 

context of the HSIP, this includes infrastructure for smarter roadways and intelligent 

transportation systems (ITS) and more robust safety data collection and analysis. 

As State and local jurisdictions are already host to autonomous vehicle pilot programs, and 

autonomous features are present in an ever-growing share of the vehicle fleet, agencies should 

now prepare for and begin adapting these new technologies. States can consider widespread 

adoption of these technologies through updated SHSPs, as well as implementation of CV or 

autonomous vehicle infrastructure—from upgrading to wider and brighter lane striping to ITS

investments. Data about the involvement of AVs in crashes can also be collected in crash reports 

and used for future data analysis.
47

Noteworthy Practice: California and Washington Include “Emerging Technologies” in SHSP

In California’s 2020 SHSP, emerging technologies is one of the safety E’s. Under this emphasis area, 

the State focuses on six key examples of ways technology could be used to reduce fatal and serious

injury crashes:

• Alerting drivers at risk

• Assisting drivers at risk

• Protecting vehicle occupants

• Communicating with drivers and the environment, including vulnerable road users outside 

the vehicle

• Vehicle performing as designed

• Mobile technology and applications focused on behavior change62

In Washington, the 2019 SHSP includes a “Cooperative Automated Transportation” section, which 

focuses on strategies around data collection and assessment of AV-supportive engineering 

changes, such as:

• Incorporate AV information into traffic violation and crash reports, including level, 

operational design domain (ODD), and if the vehicle was under driver or vehicle control.

• Assess infrastructure elements, such as signing and striping and the potential need for 

roadside communication equipment, so that they are conducive to enabling and 

supporting the operation of AVs.63

1D. Prioritize Research for Countermeasures Focused on Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety

According to national trends, crashes with vulnerable road users have been increasing,

64 and these 

crashes are over-represented for minority and low income populations (low-income is defined as an 

annual per capita income of less than $21,559 for the purposes of this report).65,66 This is an equity and 

racial justice concern, because these types of crashes have a disproportionate impact on communities that 

have experienced public disinvestment as the transportation system is often incomplete with road systems 

62 Caltrans, Strategic Highway Safety Plan, 58, retrieved from https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safetyprograms/documents/safety/shsp/2020-2024-shsp-report.pdf. 

63 Washington Traffic Safety Commission, Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2019 (2019), 190–191, 

http://targetzero.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/TargetZero2019_Lo-Res.pdf. 

64 NHTSA, “Traffic Safety Facts Annual Report Tables,” last updated June 30, 2020, 

https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/tsftables/tsfar.htm. 

65 Safe Routes to School National Partnership, At the Intersection of Active Transportation and Equity, retrieved from 

https://www.saferoutespartnership.org/sites/default/files/resource_files/at-the-intersection-of-activetransportation-and-equity.pdf. 

66 M. Maciag, “Pedestrians Dying at Disproportionate Rates in America's Poorer Neighborhoods” (August 2014),

Governing magazine, https://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/gov-pedestrian-deaths-analysis.html. 
48 

that have a higher potential for crashes.67 However, the toolbox of effective countermeasures for 

pedestrian and bicycle safety continues to be limited. A recent Transportation Research Board (TRB)

research effort describes “the lack of quality crash data (frequency, severity, injury patterns, contributing 

factors, crash types) and exposure data (volume, severity, and event data) for different contexts.”68

Research that supports effectiveness evaluations of safety countermeasures should continue to evolve and 

inform updates to HSIP-eligible project lists. Continuing to incorporate national studies, such as the recent 

NTSB Bicyclist Safety on US Roadways: Crash Risks and Countermeasures69 report, into the States’ SHSP 

and HSIP can help cross-agency alignment and support evolving safety infrastructure norms within the 

State and local context. Without updated safety effectiveness research to support countermeasures like 

separated or protected bikeways, these projects may not be prioritized under the current data-driven HSIP 

process and may limit their systemic application. Research can address topics such as geometric design 

criteria impacts on pedestrian and bicyclist exposure to crashes, as well as address kinetic energy transfer 

in crashes through countermeasures. Additional and more robust bicycle and pedestrian data collection 

efforts and volume prediction models would also provide needed data to support countermeasure 

research. 

There is an opportunity for packages of countermeasures to be considered together in project 

prioritization, allowing primary and supporting countermeasures to be prioritized based on introducing 

redundancy.

67 Safe Routes to School National Partnership, At the Intersection of Active Transportation and Equity, retrieved from 

https://www.saferoutespartnership.org/sites/default/files/resource_files/at-the-intersection-of-activetransportation-and-equity.pdf. 

68 National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Performance Functions for the 

Highway Safety Manual, paragraph 1, retrieved from 

https://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4203. 69 National Transportation Safety Board, Bicyclist Safety on US Roadways: Crash Risks and Countermeasures (November 

2019), https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1901.pdf. 
49

Noteworthy Practice: Washington SHSP Makes Connection between

Vulnerable Road Users and Speed Management Countermeasures

Washington prioritizes countermeasures for speed management as key strategies to change crash 

severity outcomes for vulnerable users such as pedestrians and bicyclists. The SHSP states:

• Although it has emerged at the national level as an essential strategy, the practice of 

setting and designing speed limits to minimize injuries and fatalities for pedestrians and 

bicyclists is relatively new for Washington State.70

• To achieve Target Zero, partners must prioritize self-enforcing speed reduction 

countermeasures wherever pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists are likely to interact on 

the roadway.71

• Many Safe System improvements focus on vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and 

bicyclists. The good news is that designing to reduce exposure to potentially fatal crashes 

for the most vulnerable road users is a proven, effective strategy to achieve better 

outcomes for motorists and motorcyclists as well.72

1E. Doubling Down on Countermeasures to Address Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes 

Across all aspects of the HSIP process, States can double down on prioritizing countermeasures that 

address fatal and serious injury crashes. Changes can include the following:

• Conduct CMF research that specifically focuses on fatal and serious injury crashes 

• Develop safety performance functions specifically for fatal and serious injury crashes 

• Include only fatal and serious injury crashes in the network screening process to identify key 

safety issues

Shifting focus to fatal and serious injury crashes also allows for human vulnerability and human factors to 

take on a more prominent role in roadway safety research. As a result of this change in program focus, the 

scope of States’ safety programs has also changed. In addition to reactive improvements at high crash 

locations, States are also introducing proactive improvements based on the presence of risk factors 

(systemic approach to safety), which aligns with the Safe System principle that Safety Is Proactive. 

However, the focus on fatalities and serious injuries has not carried through to all aspects of every State’s 

safety program.

Programs like usRAP, which is a proactive risk assessment that includes an international star rating system 

(through iRAP), are already proven in creating increased transportation safety. These programs collect and 

provide key roadway and traffic control data to highway agencies to support proactive safety analysis, 

70 Washington Traffic Safety Commission, Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2019 (2019), 126, 

http://targetzero.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/TargetZero2019_Lo-Res.pdf. 

71 Washington Traffic Safety Commission, Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2019 (2019), 127.

72 Washington Traffic Safety Commission, Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2019 (2019), 194.
50 

which can help to further align problem identification processes with the Safe System approach.

Enhancements to usRAP could include incorporating KPIs, for example, similar to the EU Road Safety 

Policy Framework 2021-2030.

73

Noteworthy Practice: Arizona Keeps Focus on Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes

The Safe System approach puts fatal and serious injury crashes at the forefront. In cases where fatal 

or serious injury crash reduction data may not be available, other options may be considered. For 

example, Arizona’s HSIP promotes identifying effective countermeasures that focus on the 

“expected reduction in the number of fatalities and serious injuries,”74 including only the most 

severe crashes in the HSIP application benefit/cost ratio calculation. The State publishes CMFs for 

fatalities and serious injuries when possible. However, if sufficient data on fatal and serious injury 

crashes are not available, the State will also include CMFs related to minor injuries.75

1F. Other Project Prioritization Considerations

Given these different options for identifying countermeasures that support a Safe System approach, it is 

reasonable to ask whether or not benefit-cost analysis will continue to be the right approach for 

identifying and prioritizing highway safety improvement projects. Should we turn our focus from the most 

cost-effective countermeasures to instead prioritize the most effective countermeasures? According to the 

International Transport Forum, “Financing road safety is also viewed from a new angle in a Safe System. In 

a traditional approach, the main question related to financing is, ‘Which measures are most effective, 

given the available budget for improving road safety?’ In the case of working towards a Safe System, the 

question should be, ‘How much money do we need to create a Safe System and how do we get the 

necessary funding?’”76 The former description fits the current system of benefit-cost analysis, confirming 

that enhancements to this current system are necessary to achieve a paradigm shift under Safe System. 

States and FHWA can work together to determine the right approach for prioritizing funding for projects 

under a Safe System approach. For example, States can consider using equity considerations in project 

prioritization through the HSIP, with a change to benefit-cost analysis or through a set-aside program.

Setting priorities may also leverage backcasting, which identifies the infrastructure and funding required 

to achieve zero traffic deaths in a future horizon year, and then sets interim funding, policy, and program 

milestones between the current year and horizon year.

73 European Commission, EU Road Safety Policy Framework (2019),

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/sites/roadsafety/files/1_en_document_travail_service_part1_v2.pdf. 

74 Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program Manual (2018), 12, 

https://azdot.gov/sites/default/files/2019/06/2015-hsip-manual.pdf. 

75 ADOT, Arizona Highway Safety Improvement Program Manual (2018), appendix B, 

https://azdot.gov/sites/default/files/2019/06/hsip-appendixB.pdf. 

76 ITF, Zero Road Deaths and Serious Injuries (2016), 38, http://www.towardszerofoundation.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/10/Zero_road_deaths-SafeSystems.pdf.
51

Research should be conducted to broaden the focus of engineering countermeasures to include roadway 

design or control elements that specifically support each Safe System element. For example, engineering 

countermeasures can be identified that influence behavior change and account for human limitations, 

prioritize emergency response for timely and high-quality post-crash care, and provide supportive 

infrastructure for safer connected and autonomous vehicles. Research should also identify how kinetic 

energy models can help States identify and prioritize projects. Lastly, research could compare CMFs versus

kinetic energy models and develop guidance on how to blend those two approaches and analytics.

Noteworthy Practice: California’s Pedestrian Safety Improvement Monitoring Program

and Virginia’s Pedestrian Safety Action Plan

In its Pedestrian Safety Improvement Monitoring Program77 (round 2), California developed an initial 

systemic list of locations from crash data patterns in each district, then applied a prioritization process 

to sort the locations for the most pressing need for intervention. This process included weighting the

presence of a crash heavily in importance, but several other variables were included to prioritize for 

children, seniors, and equity concerns for disadvantaged communities. 

Similarly, in 2019 the Virginia Department of Transportation updated the priority locations for 

pedestrian safety improvements as part of its Pedestrian Safety Action Plan78 with location 

prioritization that included the Virginia Department of Health’s Health Opportunity index (HOI) 

composite score. The score comprises factors such as food accessibility and income inequality. 

Including the HOI in the location prioritization methodology embeds equity considerations in the 

process. 

2. Assess Crash Severity Risk Using Level of Kinetic Energy

Transfer and Speed

Risk of serious injury crashes may be proactively estimated across both the State and local road networks 

using relationships between the operating speeds and roadway characteristics and features. Proactive risk 

estimation processes may be applied that are similar to the network screening of potential risk factors 

under a systemic safety approach. As HSIP programs evolve to blend proactive systemic safety processes 

with reactive approaches based on historic crashes, agencies can progressively move toward integrating 

an estimation of the likelihood of future severe crash outcomes for their road networks. Shifting the focus 

to speed and kinetic energy transfer helps to align with the Safe System principle that Humans Are 

Vulnerable. 

77 Caltrans, 2016 Pilot Pedestrian Collision Monitoring Program, retrieved from https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/safety-programs/documents/ped-bike/f0018144-2016-pilot-pedestrian-collision-monitoringprogram-fact-sheet-version-1-a11y.pdf. 

78 Virginia Department of Transportation, 2019 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan Analysis Update - User Guide (December 

2019).
52 

Throughout FHWA’s HSIP and SHSP documentation, language can be included that draws a direct 

connection between human body tolerance, speed, kinetic energy transfer, and crash severity. This could 

include references to roadside safety hardware and crash testing specifically focused on kinetic energy 

transfer, as well as crash reconstruction methods used by agencies and the NTSB.

79

Understanding kinetic energy transfer (e.g., crash magnitude) related to different modes, crash types, and 

roadway conditions could help States identify and prioritize projects. In a call for action in the Journal of 

Injury and Violence Research, Davoud Khorasani-Zavareh and his coauthors state, “Road traffic injury 

preventive activities necessitate Kinetic energy management to improve road user safety.”80

Additional research on this topic is needed to help support an agency’s project prioritization efforts, 

including how kinetic energy models can be used to complement or supplement crash prediction models. 

This research need has been recognized by road safety experts across the United States, and studies such 

as the forthcoming FHWA Establishing a Safe System Framework for Intersections81 will begin to address 

this need. Through Federal and State research, agencies could review existing crash data records to 

estimate the crash magnitude, in terms of kinetic energy, that was carried by involved parties prior to the

crashes. After determining the range of kinetic energy magnitudes across the State for different modes 

and conditions, States could make safety intervention and prioritize decisions with this in mind. This work 

could be performed through the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) or as a 

pooled-fund study.

79 FHWA, Crash Investigation and Reconstruction Technologies and Best Practices, FHWA-HOP-16-009 (October 

2015).

80 Davoud Khorasani-Zavareh et al., "Kinetic Energy Management in Road Traffic Injury Prevention: A Call for Action," 

Journal of Injury and Violence Research 7.1 (2015): 36.

81 FHWA (forthcoming), Establishing a Safe System Framework for Intersections. 
53

Noteworthy Practice: Australia’s Focus on Kinetic Energy Transfer 

Australia’s roadway safety strategies are built on the foundation of Safe System principles and 

include a focus on kinetic energy transfer. For example, crash severity levels are defined using 

kinetic energy transfer concepts, with the following two extremes:82

• 0 = should a crash occur, there is only minimal chance it will result in a fatality or serious 

injury to the relevant road user. This might mean that kinetic energy transferred during the 

crash is low enough to not cause a fatal or serious injury (FSI), or that excessive kinetic 

energy is effectively redirected/dissipated before being transferred to the road user.83

• 4 = should a crash occur, it is highly likely it will result in a fatality or serious injury to any 

road user. Kinetic energy is high enough to cause a FSI crash, and it is unlikely that the 

forces will be dissipated before reaching the road user.84

In its project-level countermeasure assessment process, Australia uses these definitions of likely 

crash severity, along with crash likelihood and road user exposure, to score different 

countermeasures based on alignment with the Safe System and then prioritize new infrastructure 

appropriately. 

The FHWA has a study underway, entitled Establishing a Safe System Framework for Intersections,

85 which

supports this recommendation. This study will present a methodology that explicitly incorporates Safe 

System principles to vet different intersection design and control alternatives. The methodology will be 

sensitive to exposure, severity, and complexity, and will rely on inputs commonly available during project 

development. This initial framework will dovetail with the first stage of intersection control evaluation 

procedures, which is typically the planning or scoping stage of an intersection project. 

3. Identify Opportunities to Encourage Local Planning Efforts

That Align with the Safe System Approach

In alignment with State SHSP and HSIP goals, States can provide funding for and encourage local 

jurisdictions to undertake their own safety planning efforts that align with the Safe System approach. In 

States with competitive HSIP grant programs, these planning efforts can also set cities and counties up for 

success in HSIP grant applications. At the State level, an updated SHSP that incorporates Safe System 

principles could act as a key resource for local jurisdictions interested in this approach. This approach 

aligns with the Safe System principle that Responsibility Is Shared. 

82 Austroads, Safe System Infrastructure on Mixed Use Arterials (2017), https://austroads.com.au/publications/roadsafety/ap-t330-17/media/AP-T330-17_Safe_System_Infrastructure_on_Mixed_Use_Arterials.pdf. 

83 Austroads, Safe System Infrastructure on Mixed Use Arterials (2017), 120.

84 Austroads, Safe System Infrastructure on Mixed Use Arterials (2017), 121.

85 FHWA (forthcoming), Establishing a Safe System Framework for Intersections. 
54 

Noteworthy Practice: Local Jurisdictions Embracing Holistic Safety Planning Efforts

San Francisco, one of the early adopters of the Vision Zero approach to road safety, has been 

embracing the Safe System principles for many years, demonstrating how the Safe System approach 

can be brought to the local level. The core tenants of Vision Zero align with that of the Safe System 

approach, and San Francisco has implemented their program with a focus on important elements 

such as post-crash care, forging important relationships with the San Francisco General Hospital 

and Trauma Center “to develop a comprehensive system to ensure accurate, coordinated and timely 

monitoring of injuries and fatalities for safety project prioritization, evaluation, and reporting.”86

4. Establish Safe System Working Group and Pilot Projects

According to the International Transport Forum, “Demonstrations and pilot projects can also be helpful to 

raise awareness among road users, system designers and politicians that a Safe System improves road 

safety.”87 Commonly cited Safe System demonstration projects include Sweden’s 2+1 Road Pilot, which is

“a three-lane road with two lanes in one direction and one lane in the other that alternate every few 

kilometers, as an alternative to traditional motorways. The pilot project provided evidence for a positive 

safety effect of this concept and convinced road designers and engineers that this was an appropriate 

solution for the Swedish situation.”88

To help establish and support demonstration projects, as well as develop resources for general support of 

transitioning to a Safe System approach, FHWA or individual State DOTs can establish a Safe System 

working group. Western Australia regional jurisdictions have established Safe System working groups.89

This is an opportunity to encourage collaboration among Federal and State stakeholders in committing to 

an ongoing Safe System approach. Similar working groups could be established to encourage 

collaboration among State and local roadway safety representatives.

86 Vision Zero SF, “Evaluating & Monitoring Our Progress,” retrieved from https://www.visionzerosf.org/vision-zero-inaction/evaluating-monitoring-our-progress/. 

87 ITF, Zero Road Deaths and Serious Injuries (2016), 45, http://www.towardszerofoundation.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/10/Zero_road_deaths-SafeSystems.pdf. 88 ITF, Zero Road Deaths and Serious Injuries (2016), 45, http://www.towardszerofoundation.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/10/Zero_road_deaths-SafeSystems.pdf. 

89 ITF, Zero Road Deaths and Serious Injuries (2016), http://www.towardszerofoundation.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/10/Zero_road_deaths-SafeSystems.pdf.
55

Noteworthy Practice: Partnerships Lead to Innovation in Texas

In Texas where the majority of rural travel occurs on two-lane highways, it had become common 

practice for drivers to pull onto the shoulder to let a vehicle pass, creating potential safety issues.90

The Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) and the Texas DOT (TxDOT) partnered together to 

develop a solution—called the Super 2 design—where short-term passing lanes were installed at 

regular intervals along two-lane corridors. Since then, other States have followed suit, and TTI and 

TxDOT continue to partner together to research and refine this solution. 

Summary

This chapter outlined the following opportunities for aligning the State HSIP process with the Safe System 

approach: 

1. Research, prioritize, and fund engineering countermeasures that address Safe System elements 

and principles 

a. Hierarchy of Controls

b. Primary and supporting countermeasures

c. Beyond traditional countermeasures

d. Prioritize research for countermeasures focused on bicycle and pedestrian safety

e. Doubling down on countermeasures to address fatal and serious injury crashes

f. Other project prioritization considerations

2. Assess crash severity risk using level of kinetic energy transfer and speed

3. Identify opportunities to encourage local planning efforts that align with the Safe System 

approach

4. Establish Safe System working group and pilot projects

These opportunities are primarily organized around research, prioritization, and funding of 

countermeasures, which are key to the HSIP process. By refocusing countermeasure research, 

prioritization, and funding on key components of the Safe System approach such as eliminating risk, 

incorporating redundancy, and recognizing human vulnerability, the HSIP process can make large strides 

in alignment with the Safe System approach. The opportunity to encourage local planning efforts that 

align with the Safe System approach can help supplement investments in Safe System at the Federal and 

State levels, and help States achieve their safety performance targets and long-term safety goals. 

Federal, State, and local partners responsible for roadway safety can consider the following questions, 

where applicable, to identify State-specific opportunities to move towards a Safe System: 

90 Texas Transportation Researcher, Two Decades of Super 2 Research and Implementation for TxDOT Continue to 

Produce Benefits, retrieved from https://tti.tamu.edu/researcher/two-decades-of-super-2-research-andimplementation-for-txdot-continues-to-produce-benefits/.
56

• How can our HSIP process be better aligned with the Safe System approach?

• How can we support a shift in countermeasure research, prioritization, and funding to better align

with the Safe System approach?

• Are we focused on countermeasures that eliminate fatal and serious injury crashes?

• Are we focused on countermeasures that address pedestrian and bicyclist safety issues?

• Is my State or local jurisdiction focusing on how kinetic energy transfer and speed relate to crash

severity?

• Are there opportunities at the local level in my State to support planning efforts that incorporate

the Safe System approach?
57

Conclusion and Next Steps

Safe System is a relatively new concept in the United States and aligning existing safety programs will 

require a one-step-at-a-time collaborative approach, which will be specific to each implementing 

jurisdiction. This report demonstrates that while Safe System principles are currently present in many 

components of the State SHSP and HSIP processes, there are additional opportunities to bring these two 

key safety programs into further alignment with Safe System principles and elements. 

Opportunities to better align the State SHSP and HSIP with Safe System principles, include but are not 

limited to: 

SHSP 

1. Organize SHSP around Safe System six core principles and five elements 

2. Commit to a “zero” goal and establish performance management strategies

3. Refocus speeding emphasis area on speed management and roadway design

4. Institutionalize equity in road safety work

5. Use proactive data collection and analysis approaches to address equity considerations

HSIP 

1. Research, prioritize, and fund engineering countermeasures that address Safe System elements 

and principles

a. Hierarchy of Controls

b. Primary and supporting countermeasures

c. Beyond traditional countermeasures

d. Prioritize research for countermeasures focused on bicycle and pedestrian safety

e. Doubling down on countermeasures to address fatal and serious injury crashes

f. Other project prioritization considerations

2. Assess crash severity risk using level of kinetic energy transfer and speed

3. Identify opportunities to encourage local planning efforts that align with the Safe System 

approach

4. Establish Safe System working groups and pilot projects

A key factor in successful implementation of a Safe System approach in existing safety programs is 

educating Federal and State safety engineers on Safe System. FHWA developed various marketing and 

outreach materials (e.g., flyer, presentation, video) that can help with education activities. Federal, State, 

and local safety leaders should include Safe System as part of every discussion and schedule formal 

opportunities to promote Safe System at various conferences and events. 
58 

A first step for States may be to assess their State SHSP and HSIP against the areas of alignment identified 

in this report. The questions in each chapter summary can be a useful tool to support this effort. 

For many of the opportunities outlined in this report, looking beyond HSIP to address how these 

opportunities can be applied to other Federal and State transportation programs and projects can help to 

infuse an aligned Safe System approach throughout FHWA and other coordinating agencies. For example, 

agencies can review existing policies and procedures to align with Safe System principles. Safe System can 

be most effective by institutionalizing its implementation at all levels of roadway planning and 

engineering, and across all disciplines that have a hand in supporting roadway safety.
U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

FHWA, Office of Safety

Karen Scurry

karen.scurry@dot.gov

(202) 897-7168

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov

December 2020

FHWA-SA-20-018

Image source: Pixabay user B_Me