Vision Zero and Welcoming Roads Compared

There are areas of overlap and key areas of difference between Vision Zero and Welcoming Roads.

It is also important to note that there are key differences between the original version of Vision Zero and current incarnations.

Original Vision Zero vs Welcoming Roads comparison

This directly compares Welcoming Roads with a 1999 paper on Vision Zero here: https://avr.lu/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Microsoft_Word___Vision_Zero_706.pdf

Similarities:

  • Systems Approach: Both emphasize a systems approach to road safety, acknowledging that multiple factors contribute to accidents and that solutions need to address these factors holistically.
  • Shared Responsibility: Both recognize that responsibility for road safety is shared between those who design and manage the road system and those who use it. However, the degree of shared responsibility differs (see below).
  • Focus on Reducing Fatalities and Serious Injuries: Both ultimately aim to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on the roads.
  • Importance of Speed Management: Both recognize speed as a critical factor influencing accident severity. Both see the importance of speed management, although they differ on how to implement it.

Differences:

  • Ethical Foundation and Acceptable Losses: This is a core difference. The 1999 VZ document explicitly states that “it can never be ethically acceptable that people are killed or seriously injured when moving within the road transport system.” This is the basis for the “Zero” vision. Welcoming Roads, conversely, rejects the “ideological goal of zero casualties” as unrealistic and potentially counterproductive.
  • Target Setting: The 1999 VZ document states that “Zero is not a target to be achieved by a certain date. It is a change from an emphasis on current problems and possible ways of reducing these to being guided by what the optimum state of the road transport system should be.” Welcoming Roads advocates for SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely) targets.  The elimination of all risk is not seen as an achievable or realistic target and thus not SMART.
  • Emphasis on Human Error: The 1999 VZ document, while acknowledging shared responsibility, places a strong emphasis on designing a system that is forgiving of human error. The implication is that the system should be designed to minimize the consequences of mistakes. Welcoming Roads, while not dismissing human error, places more emphasis on the responsibility of road users to behave responsibly and show consideration for others.
  • “Trading” Safety for Mobility: The 1999 VZ document explicitly states that “safety is as (or more) important as any other issue in the road transport system. Mobility therefore should follow from safety and cannot be obtained at the expense of safety.” Welcoming Roads, while valuing safety, is more concerned about the potential for safety measures to unduly restrict mobility or unfairly disadvantage certain road users. Safety needs to be applied to mobility but should not restrict or prevent it.  It seeks a better balance between safety and other considerations.
  • Prescriptive vs. Flexible: The 1999 VZ document, while not prescribing specific strategies, implies a more top-down, system-driven approach, with experts and authorities determining safety standards and implementing them through infrastructure design and regulations. Welcoming Roads advocates for a more collaborative and flexible approach, considering the needs and perspectives of all road users and avoiding a “one-size-fits-all” mentality.
  • Explicit Recognition of Diverse Road Uses: Welcoming Roads explicitly recognizes that roads are used for many purposes, including leisure, sport, and exercise, and that these uses should be respected. The 1999 VZ document doesn’t specifically address this aspect.
  • Vehicle Design Focus: The 1999 VZ document discusses the idea of vehicles being able to guarantee seat belt use, sober driving, and speed limitation. Welcoming Roads doesn’t focus on this level of vehicle intervention and control. 
  • Community Involvement: The 1999 VZ document talks about stimulating the community to use the system in a safer way through corporate behaviour and defining a “safe” way of using the road transport system. Welcoming Roads also advocates for community involvement focusing on education and engagement to promote mutual respect and understanding among road users.

In summary, the 1999 Vision Zero document lays the groundwork for a system designed to prevent serious injuries and fatalities, placing a strong emphasis on infrastructure design and speed management. But the tone leans towards road users being passive rule takers – the product being transported.  An elite are responsible for creating a safe system in which road users are required to follow the rules without question.  Welcoming Roads builds upon the Safe Systems approach but seeks a more balanced and inclusive approach, emphasizing personal responsibility, mutual respect, and the recognition of diverse road uses. Welcoming Roads is essentially a critique and proposed evolution of Vision Zero.

Original VZ vs recent incarnations comparison

Similarities

  • Ethical Foundation: Both the original 1999 Vision Zero document and recent versions emphasize the ethical principle that “it can never be ethically acceptable that people are killed or seriously injured when moving within the road transport system”. Safety is prioritized over mobility, with the belief that life and health cannot be traded for other societal benefits.
  • Shared Responsibility: Both approaches stress shared responsibility between system designers and road users. Designers are ultimately responsible for creating a safe system, while road users are responsible for following rules.
  • Safe System Approach: Both versions adopt the Safe System approach, focusing on infrastructure design, speed management, and vehicle safety to minimize the consequences of human error.
  • Focus on Fatalities and Serious Injuries: Both prioritize reducing fatalities and serious injuries rather than addressing minor injuries or non-injury accidents.

Differences

  • Timeline Targets: The 1999 Vision Zero document explicitly states that “Zero is not a target to be achieved by a certain date” but rather a long-term vision guiding strategies and goals. Recent incarnations, such as London’s Vision Zero plan, set specific deadlines (e.g., eliminating deaths and serious injuries by 2041) to create urgency and accountability. Other jurisdictions, like Vision Zero South West, set interim targets (e.g., reducing KSI casualties by 50% by 2030) while still aiming for zero fatalities eventually.  This takes current incarnations further away from Welcoming Roads adherence to SMART targets.
  • Urgency and Accountability: Recent versions emphasize urgency by setting measurable benchmarks and deadlines to track progress, which contrasts with the original document’s focus on gradual systemic change without time-bound goals.  Urgency is often used to justify greater control and restriction of opportunity for errors rather than mitigation.
  • Expanded Scope of Strategies: Recent incarnations incorporate broader strategies like post-collision responses (e.g., justice for victims), targeted enforcement campaigns, and public education programs to address risky behaviours. These additions reflect a move away from the original document’s focus on system design and shared responsibility.
  • Local Adaptation: Modern implementations often tailor Vision Zero strategies to local contexts, addressing specific challenges such as urban congestion or dangerous intersections (e.g., London’s focus on junction redesigns). The original Vision Zero document provides general principles without detailing localized applications, or seeking to address priorities beyond casualty reduction.
  • Integration with Other Goals: Recent versions co-opt Vision Zero into other societal objectives, such as reducing carbon emissions or promoting sustainable urban transport systems (e.g., London’s emphasis on safe cycling infrastructure). The original document does not explicitly address these broader environmental or mobility preferences.

Conclusion

While the ethical foundation and Safe System principles remain consistent between the original 1999 Vision Zero document and its modern adaptations, recent versions have evolved to include specific timeline targets, measurable interim goals, expanded strategies, and integration with other priorities. These changes are framed as efforts to make Vision Zero more actionable, accountable, and relevant to contemporary urban challenges, but result in greater autocracy and control, taking Vision Zero ever further from the Welcoming Roads philosophy.

Additional Differences between Welcoming Roads and the latest incarnations of Vision Zero.

The latest incarnations of Vision Zero show an increasing divergence from Welcoming Roads.

Target Setting: Recent Vision Zero implementations, such as in London and Greater Manchester, set specific timeline targets for achieving zero fatalities and serious injuries (e.g., London’s target by 2041). In contrast, Welcoming Roads advocates for SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely) targets, rejecting the “ideological goal of zero casualties” as unrealistic.

Modal Equality: Welcoming Roads emphasizes equal safety and efficiency for all road users, regardless of their mode of transport or purpose for using the road. It argues that Vision Zero prioritizes the safety of certain modes (walking, cycling, public transport) over others, such as cars and motorcycles.

Legitimate Road Uses: Welcoming Roads explicitly recognizes diverse road uses, including commuting, logistics, leisure, sport, and exercise. It states that no one should feel disproportionately restricted from using roads for any of these purposes.

Public Engagement: Welcoming Roads contends that Vision Zero’s branding creates barriers to engagement with parts of the road-using public, particularly those most in need of safety improvements. Motorcycling has been the canary in the mineshaft since the inception of Vision Zero.  Statements were made to the effect that motorcycling can never fit in Vision Zero.  Increasingly it appears that any form of private motorised transport is a problem to be solved as opposed to a recipient of Vision Zero support.  Welcoming Roads aims for a more inclusive approach to avoid disengagement and resistance.

Balancing Priorities: Welcoming Roads argues against using road safety as a tool to influence changes in transport choices, which it sees as an increasing issue in many Vision Zero implementations.

Social Equity Focus: Newer Vision Zero approaches, like those in American cities, explicitly address social equity issues, prioritizing interventions in areas most in need of safety improvements and engaging vulnerable communities in decision-making processes.

These differences highlight Welcoming Roads’ attempt to address perceived shortcomings in Vision Zero’s implementation while maintaining support for core principles like the Safe System approach.