Advertisement

Revealing the Complexity of Road Transport with Accimaps

  • Rich C. McIlroy
  • Katherine L. Plant
  • Neville A. Stanton
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 823)

Abstract

The UK has one of the safest road systems of any country, yet road traffic accidents still represent the 12th leading cause of death. Although casualty and fatality rates have dropped dramatically since the 1980s, there has been little change in the past five years or so, suggesting that roads safety initiatives have plateaued in their effectiveness. Following calls for a new approach to the challenge we adopt a sociotechnical systems viewpoint. Traditionally, road safety has been addressed through the three ‘E’s of engineering, education, and enforcement; we have added to these with an additional four ‘E’s, namely economics, emergency response, enablement, and ergonomics. We use the Actor Map representation, the first step in the Accimap approach to accident analysis, to model the road transport system, with the resulting diagram giving an indication of the level of complexity we must face when designing road safety interventions. The research presented in this article represents the first step in a broader project that takes a sociotechnical approach to global road safety, involving partners in five geographically dispersed, and economically, developmentally, and culturally distinct nations.

Keywords

Accimaps Road safety Sociotechnical systems 

Notes

Funding Statement and Disclaimer

This research was commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research using Official Development Assistance (ODA) funding. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care.

References

  1. Ahangari H, Atkinson-Palombo C, Garrick NW (2017) Automobile-dependency as a barrier to vision zero, evidence from the states in the USA. Accid Anal Prev 107:77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amos L, Davies D, Fosdick T (2015) Road Safety Since 2010. PACTS & RAC Foundation, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Arzberger P, Schroeder P, Beaulieu A, Bowker G, Casey K, Laaksonen L, Moorman D, Uhlir P, Wouter P (2004) An international framework to promote access to data. Science 303:1777–1778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balikuddembe JK, Ardalan A, Khorasani-Zavareh D, Nejati A, Kasiima S (2017) Factors affecting the exposure, vulnerability and emergency medical service capacity for victims of road traffic incidents in Kampala metropolitan area: a Delphi study. BMC Emergency Medicine, 17, no paginationGoogle Scholar
  5. Bishai D, Asiimwe B, Abbas S, Hyder AA, Bazeyo W (2008) Cost-effectiveness of traffic enforcement: case study from Uganda. Injury Prev 14:223–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brake (2017) Annual Report 2015. Brake, Huddersfield, UKGoogle Scholar
  7. Bristol City Council (2015) A safe systems approach to road safety in Bristol. Bristol City Council, Bristol, UKGoogle Scholar
  8. Broughton J, Knowles J (2010) Providing the numerical context for British casualty reduction targets. Saf Sci 48:1134–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ciaburro T, Spencer J (2017) UK road safety seizing the opportunities safe roads. Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark DE, Winchell RJ, Betensky RA (2013) Estrimating the effect of emergency care on early survival after traffic crashes. Accid Anal Prev 60:141–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DfT (2016) Reported Road Casualties Great Britain: 2015 Annual Report. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/568484/rrcgb-2015.pdf. Accessed 16 Mar 2018
  12. European Commisison (2016) Post-impact care. Summary 2016. European Road Safety Observatory. https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/sites/roadsafety/files/ersosynthesis2016-summary-postimpactcare5_en.pdf. Accessed 28 Sep 2017
  13. Heinrich HW (1931) Industrial accident prevention: a scientific approach. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. House of Commons Transport Committee (2017) Road traffic law enforcement. Second Report of Session 2015–16. The Stationary Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Gains A, Noerdstrum N, Heydecker B, Shrewsbury J (2005) The national safety camera programme. Four-Year evaluation report. Department for Transport, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Janssen M, Charalabidis Y, Zuiderwijk A (2012) Benefits, adoption barriers, and myths of open government. Inf Syst Manag 29:258–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lydell R (2017) Exposed: London’s most prolific speed camera which has raised £1.5 m in six months. Evening Standard, Tuesday the 3rd of January. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/exposed-londons-most-prolific-speed-camera-which-has-raised-15m-in-six-months-a3431156.html. Accessed 27 Sep 2017
  18. Newnam S, Goode N (2015) Do not blame the driver: a systems analysis of the causes of road freight crashes. Accid Anal Prev 76:141–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. NHS (2016) Major Trauma Canters in England October 2016. https://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/AboutNHSservices/Emergencyandurgentcareservices/Documents/2016/MTS-map.pdf. Accessed 30 Oct 2017
  20. Noland RB, Quddus MA (2004) Improvements in medical care and technology and reductions in traffic-related fatalities in Great Britain. Accid Anal Prev 36:103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. PACTS (2017) Safe System. http://www.pacts.org.uk/safe-system/. Accessed 6 Sep 2017
  22. Parnell KJ, Stanton NA, Plant KL (2017) What’s the law got to do with it? Legislation regarding in-vehicle technology use and its impact on driver distraction. Accid Anal Prev 100:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peden M, Scurfield R, Sleet D, Mohan D, Hyder AA, Jarawan E, Mather C (2004) World report on road traffic injury prevention. World Health Organisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  24. Pilkington P (2003) Speed cameras under attack in the United Kingdom. Injury Prev 9:293–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rasmussen J (1997) Risk management in a dynamic society: A modelling problem. Saf Sci 27:183–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Razzak JA, Kellermann AL (2002) Emergency medical care in developing countries: is it worthwhile? Bull World Health Organ 80:900–905Google Scholar
  27. Salmon PM, Read GJM, Stanton NA, Lenné MG (2013) The crash at Kerang: investigating systemic and psychological factors leading to unintentional non-compliance at rail level crossings. Accid Anal Prev 50:1278–1288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sánchez-Mangas R, García-Ferrera A, de Juan A, Martín Arroyo A (2010) The probability of death in road traffic accidents. How important is a quick medical response? Accid Anal Prev 42:1048–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Scott-Parker B, Goode N, Salmon P (2015) The driver, the road, the rules… and the rest? A system-based approach to young driver road safety. Accid Anal Prev 75:297–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Trist EL (1953) Some observations on the machine face as a socio-technical system. Tavistock Documents Series, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. The University of Manchester (2015) Review of major trauma networks reveals increase in patient survival rates. http://www.manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/article/?id=14891. Accessed 30 Oct 2017
  32. WHO (2015) Global Status Report on Road Safety 2015. World Health Organisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  33. WHO (2017a) The top 10 causes of death. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/. Accessed 25 Sep 2017
  34. WHO (2017b) Decade of action. http://www.who.int/roadsafety/decade_of_action/. Accessed 29 Sep 2017

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rich C. McIlroy
    • 1
  • Katherine L. Plant
    • 1
  • Neville A. Stanton
    • 1
  1. 1.Human Factors Engineering, Transportation Research Group, Faculty of Engineering and the EnvironmentUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations