The relevance of U.S. Strategic Highway Safety Plans in a future context

Autoři: Brett P. Hughes aff001;  Torbjorn Falkmer aff001;  Anna Anund aff003;  Melissa H. Black aff001
Působiště autorů: School of Occupational Therapy, Social Work and Speech Pathology, Curtin University, Perth, Australia aff001;  Pain and Rehabilitation Centre, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linkoping University, Linkoping, Sweden aff002;  Swedish Road and Transport Research Institute, VTI, Linkoping, Sweden aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(10)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223646


While road safety in the United States (U.S.) has been continually improving since the 1970's, there are indications that these improvements are becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. Strategic Highway Safety Plans (SHSPs) are prepared by States to guide road safety management, however assessing the appropriateness of these plans remains a significant challenge, especially for the future in which they are to be applied. This study developed a new methodology to assess SHSPs from the perspectives of comprehensive system-based safety management and relevant future issues that can be applied before SHSPs are implemented, thereby avoiding long periods after implementation before assessing the appropriateness of the plans. A rating scale was developed and applied to assess 48 U.S. SHSPs against two key criteria: 1. a comprehensive framework for road safety, and 2. the anticipated changing, difficult and unpredictable nature of future transport and its context. The analysis concluded that current SHSPs have good national oversight with several strengths but were weak in some areas of content and did not address future challenges. Improvements are suggested to strengthen the plans’ thoroughness by being consistent with systems theory and practice, as well as ways that these SHSPs can be more resilient to future circumstances. Implementing the recommendations in this paper provides the opportunity to adopt a system-based safety management practice that has been successful in other hazardous industries. Doing so is expected to most efficiently and effectively continue the recent improvements to road safety, which is likely to be increasingly difficult otherwise.

Klíčová slova:

Behavior – Decision making – Engineering and technology – Roads – Traffic safety – Transportation – Automation – Highways


1. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) encyclopedia. Washington (DC): The Administration; 2018 [cited 2018 June 6]. Available from:

2. Beck B, Cameron PA, Fitzgerald MC, Judson RT, Teague W, Lyons RA, et al. Road safety: Serious injuries remain a major unsolved problem. Med J Aust. 2017;207(6):244–249. doi: 10.5694/mja17.00015 28899316

3. International Transport Forum. Road safety annual report 2016. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; 2016.

4. Federal Highway Administration. About the State Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Washington (DC): The Administration; 2017 [cited 2018 June 13]. Available from:

5. Chapanis A. Human factors in system engineering. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1996

6. Hughes BP. A Comprehensive framework for future road safety strategies [PhD thesis]. Perth, Australia: Curtin University; 2017 [cited 2018 Jan 1]. Available from:

7. European Union. Declaration of Amsterdam: Cooperation in the field of connected and automated driving. Brussels, Belgium: European Union; 2016.

8. National Transport Commission. Land transport regulation 2040: Technology, trends and other factors of change. Melbourne, Australia: The Commission; 2016.

9. Bennett N, Lemoine GJ. What VUCA really means for you. Harv Bus Rev. 2014:Jan-Feb:27.

10. Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol). From Safety I to Safety II: A white paper. Brussels, Belgium: The Organisation; 2013.

11. Rasmussen J. Risk management in a dynamic society: A modelling problem. Saf Sci. 1997;27(2–3):183–213.

12. Hughes BP, Anund A, Falkmer T. A comprehensive conceptual framework for road safety strategies. Accid Anal Prev. 2016;90:13–28. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2016.01.017 26890077

13. Sivak M. Mechanisms involved in the recent large reductions in us road fatalities. Inj Prev. 2009;15(3):205–206. doi: 10.1136/ip.2009.021964 19494101

14. Wegman F, Hagenzieker M. Editorial, special issue scientific research on road safety management, Saf Sci. 2010;48(9):1081–1084.

15. Federal Highway Administration. Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) guidance. Washington (DC): The Administration; 2016 [cited 2018 June 13]. Available from:

16. Federal Highway Administration. Strategic Highway Safety Plan—Evaluation process model. Washington (DC): The Administration; 2012 [cited 2018 June 13]. Available from:

17. Wegman F, Berg HY, Cameron I, Thompson C, Siegrist S, Weijermars W. Evidence-based and data-driven road safety management. IATSS Res. 2015;39(1):19–25.

18. Hauer E. Lessons learned from other countries. White papers for: Toward Zero Deaths: A national strategy on highway safety. White paper no. 9. Vanasse Hangen Brustlin; 2010 [cited 2018 June 12]. Available from:

19. Munnich LW, Schmit MP. Roadway safety policy and leadership: A case study of six midwest states. Transp Res Rec. 2017;2635:19–27.

20. Elvik R. Does use of formal tools for road safety management improve safety performance? Transp Res Rec. 2012:2318;1–6.

21. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Road safety principles and models. Report IRRD No. 888815. Paris, France: The Organisation; 1997.

22. Gibson JJ. The contribution of experimental psychology to the formulation of the problem of safety-a brief for basic research. behavioral approaches to accident research, New York: Assoc. for the Aid of Crippled Children; 1961;77–89.

23. Gordon JE. The epidemiology of accidents. Am J Public Health. 1949;39:504–515.

24. Hendrick HW. Sociotechnical systems theory: The sociotechnical systems model of work systems. In Karwowski W, editor. International encyclopedia of ergonomics and human factors. 2nd ed. London: Taylor and Francis; 2006, p. 2966–2968.

25. Johnson WG. MORT safety assurance systems. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1980.

26. Reason J. Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Burlington: Ashgate; 1997.

27. Hughes BP, Anund A, Falkmer T. System theory and safety models in Swedish, UK, Dutch and Australian road safety strategies. Accid Anal Prev. 2015;74:271–278. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2014.07.017 25109432

28. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Highway safety manual. Washington (DC): The Association; 2018 [cited 2018 June 6]. Available from:

29. Toward Zero Deaths. A national strategy on highway safety. Toward zero deaths; 2014 [cited 2018 Jan 1]. Available from:

30. Australian Transport Council. National road safety strategy 2011–2020. Canberra, Australia: The Council; 2011.

31. Leveson NG. Engineering a safer world: Systems thinking applied to safety. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2011.

32. Ackoff RL. Towards a system of systems concepts. Manage Sci. 1971;17(11):661–671.

33. De Greene K, editor. A systems-based approach to policymaking. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1993

34. Von Bertalanffy LV. Modern theories of development. London, UK: Oxford University Press; 1933.

35. Von Bertalanffy L. General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. Harmondsworth, UK: Braziller, Inc; 1968.

36. Von Bertalanffy LV. The history and status of general systems theory. Acad Manage J. 1972;15:407–426.

37. Deming WE. The new economics. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 1994.

38. Haddon W, Suchman EA, Klein D. Factors that determine injury: Accident research methods and approaches. New York: Harper and Rowe; 1964.

39. Michaels RM. Systems research in safety. Philadelphia: Meeting of the Am Psychol Assoc; 1963. Reprinted in Haddon W, Suchman EA, Klein D. Factors that determine injury: Accident research methods and approaches. New York: Harper and Rowe; 1964. p. 366–373.

40. Perrow C. Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies. New York: Basic Books; 1984.

41. Rasmussen J, Svedung I. Proactive risk management in a dynamic society. Karlstad, Sweden: Risk and Environmental Department, Swedish Rescue Services Agency; 2000.

42. Grant E, Salmon PM, Stevens NJ, Goode N, Read GJ. Back to the future: What do accident causation models tell us about accident prediction? Saf Sci. 2018;104:99–109.

43. Read GJ, Salmon PM, Goode N, Lenné MG. A sociotechnical design toolkit for bridging the gap between systems‐based analyses and system design. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind. 2018;28(6):327–341.

44. Gates EF. Making sense of the emerging conversation in evaluation about systems thinking and complexity science. Eval Program Plann. 2016;59:62–73. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.08.004 27591941

45. Williams B, Hummelbrunner R, Systems concepts in action: a practitioner's toolkit. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 2010.

46. Cooper MD. Towards a model of safety culture. Saf Sci. 2000;36(2):111–136.

47. Guldenmund FW. The nature of safety culture: A review of theory and research. Saf Sci. 2000;34(1–3):215–257.

48. Hudson PT. Safety management and safety culture: the long, hard and winding road. Occup Health Saf Manage Syst. 2001:3–2.

49. National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority. Safety culture improvement initiatives in the Australian offshore petroleum industry. Report No. 291980. Perth, Australia: The Authority; 2013.

50. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Guiding principles for chemical accident prevention, preparedness and response. Paris, France: The Organisation; 2003.

51. Parker D, Lawrie M, Hudson P. A framework for understanding the development of organisational safety culture. Saf Sci. 2006;44(6):551–562.

52. Deloitte LLP. Transport in the digital age: Disruptive trends for smart mobility. London, UK: Deloitte LLP; 2015.

53. Fishman T.D. Digital-age transportation: The future of urban mobility. London: Deloitte Development LLC; 2012.

54. U.S. Department of Transportation. Beyond traffic 2045. Washington (DC): The Department; 2018 [cited 2019 Jan 4]. Available from:

55. Solomon LK, Ertel C. Leadership in a VUCA world: Design strategic conversations to accelerate change. Leadersh Excell Essentials. 2014;Feb:17–18.

56. Gamero N, Silla I, Sainz-González R, Sora B. The influence of organizational factors on road transport safety. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(9):1938.

57. Peden M, Scurfield R, Sleet D, Mohan D, Hyder A, Jarawan E, et al. (2004). World health report on road traffic injury prevention. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

58. Salmon PM, Lenné MG. Miles away or just around the corner? Systems thinking in road safety research and practice. Accident Accid Anal Prev. 2015;74:243–249. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2014.08.001 25240446

59. Haddon W. Energy damage and 10 countermeasure strategies. J Trauma Inj Infect Crit Care. 1973;13(4):321–331.

60. Haddon W. Options for the prevention of motor vehicle crash injury. Isr J Med Sci. 1980;16(1):45–65.

61. SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research. Sustainable Safety, 3rd edition-The advanced vision for 2018–2030. The Hague, Netherlands: The Institute; 2018.

62. Salmon PM, Read GM, Beanland V, Thompson J, Filtness AJ, Hulme A, et al. Bad behaviour or societal failure? Perceptions of the factors contributing to drivers' engagement in the fatal five driving behaviours. Appl Ergon. 2019;74:162–171. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2018.08.008 30487095

63. Dwyer J, Hopwood N. Management strategies and skills. Sydney, Australia: McGraw-Hill; 2010.

64. U.S. Agency International Development. ADS chapter 201 program cycle operational policy. Washington (DC): The Agency; 2018.

65. U.S. Agency International Development. The 5Rs framework in the program cycle, technical note, version 2.1. Washington (DC): The Agency; 2016.

66. Chen F, Chen S, Ma X. Analysis of hourly crash likelihood using unbalanced panel data mixed logit model and real-time driving environmental big data. J Saf Res. 2018;1(65):153–9.

67. Chen F, Song M, Ma X. Investigation on the injury severity of drivers in rear-end collisions between cars using a random parameters bivariate ordered probit model. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(14):2632.

68. Federal Highway Administration. FHWA strategic plan. Washington (DC): The Administration; 2018 [cited 2018 June 13]. Available from:

69. International Road Federation (IRF). The IRF Vienna manifesto on ITS: Smart transport policies for sustainable mobility. Geneva, Switzerland: The Federation; 2012.

70. Sandt L, Owens JM. Discussion guide for automated and connected vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Chapel Hill: Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center; 2017.

71. Quick L, Platt D. Disrupted: Strategy for exponential change. Victoria, Australia: Resilient Futures Media; 2015.

72. Holmberg P-E, Collado M, Sarasini S, Williander M. Mobility as a Service—MAAS: Describing the framework. Göteborg, Sweden: Viktoria Swedish ICT; 2015.

73. Hovden J, Albrechtsen E, Herrera IA. Is there a need for new theories, models and approaches to occupational accident prevention? Saf Sci. 2010;48(8):950–956.

74. Aven T, Zio E. Some consideration on the treatment of uncertainties in risk assessment for practical decision making. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2011;96:64–74.

75. Kosow H, Gaßner R. Methods of future and scenario analysis. Bonn, Germany: German Development Institute; 2008.

76. Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics (1999). Facts and furphies in benefit cost analysis: Transport. Report 100. Canberra, Australia: The Bureau; 1999.

77. Salmon PM, Read GM, Stevens NJ. Who’s in control of road safety? A STAMP control structure analysis of the road transport system in Queensland, Australia. Accid Anal Prev. 2016;96:140–151. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2016.05.025 27526203

78. Transport Research Knowledge Centre. Assessment of transport strategies. The Centre; 2004 [cited 2017 Jan 31]. Available from:

79. Hughes BP, Anund A, Falkmer T. The relevance of Australasian road safety strategies in a future context. J Australas Coll Road Saf. 2019;30(1):34–45).

80. Foundation for Traffic Safety. Improving traffic safety culture in the United States: The journey forward. Washington (DC): The Foundation; 2018 [cited 2018 May 10]. Available from:

81. Ward NJ, Linkenbach J, Keller SN, Otto J. White paper on traffic safety culture. White papers for: Toward Zero Deaths: A national strategy on highway safety. White paper no. 2. Vanasse Hangen Brustlin; 2010 [cited 2018 June 12]. Available from:

82. Wiegmann DA, von Thaden TL, Gibbons AM. A review of safety culture and its potential application to traffic Safety. Washington: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety; 2007.

83. Federal Highway Administration. Strategic Highway Safety Plan—Implementation. Washington (DC): The Administration; 2017 [cited 2018 June 13]. Available from:

84. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Countermeasures that work: A highway safety countermeasure guide for state highway safety offices. Washington (DC): The Administration; 2018 [cited 2018 May 17]. Available from:

85. Kent B, Ampt E. Why ‘building it’ doesn’t always mean they will come—Understanding reactions to behaviour change measures. 35th Australas Transpt Res Forum 2012; Perth, Australia; 2012 [cited 2018 June 13]. Available from:

86. Rudin-Brown C, Jamson S. editors. Behavioural adaptation and road safety. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2010.

87. Ajzen I. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl J, Beckmann J, editors. Action control. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 1985. p. 11–39.

88. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50:179–211.

89. Prochaska J, Velicer WF. The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. Am J Health Promot. 1997;12(1):38–48. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-12.1.38 10170434

90. Federal Highway Administration. Safety culture and the zero deaths vision. Washington (DC): The Administration; 2018 [cited 2018 June 13]. Available from:

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 10