Preamble
Vision Zero is a nebulous global movement which nobody in the UK voted for but which has come to dominate UK road safety strategy. It has replaced, in effect, the tried-and tested ‘Three E’s’ approach” namely ‘Engineering, Education and Enforcement’ which our Campaign seeks to restore.
Under the Three Es ‘enforcement’ was used as a last resort in keeping with the wise counsel of the 1947 Royal Commision on Road Safety (Reform 1). This meant that the State could focus limited resources on the more preventive engineering and educational aspects – an approach reflected in the title of JJ Leemings seminal book “Road Accidents – Prevent of Punish?”
The system worked extremely well both practically and culturally and gave rise to a downward trend in crashes year on year. This progress only faltered when police road traffic patrols were sacrificed by Tony Blair on the alter of speed cameras. Crash numbers then flatlined for over a decade.
It is important to understand that community-based, intelligence-led police road traffic patrols as we envisage in Reform 3 are an incredibly valuable and versatile resource contributing to all three Es of road safety and a host of other policing services beneficial to the community. Reliance on ‘Vision Zero’ we feel is a very poor substitute.
Vision Zero Today
Today Vision Zero is usually described as a strategy for eliminating all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, and promoting safe, healthy, and sustainable mobility for all.
There is no single definitive text or document that lays out the Vision Zero road safety philosophy in its entirety. It is a philosophy which despite having its roots in road safety, has become wrapped up and co-opted into wider agendas.
The Vision Zero concept originated in Sweden and was officially adopted by the Swedish Parliament in October 1997. It was adopted as a new long-term goal and strategy for road safety. At that time there was no explicit mention of promoting health or environmental goals.
At its core was the ethical stance that it is unacceptable for human mistakes to have fatal consequences in road traffic. This stance prioritises safety over mobility. The inclusion of the word ‘zero’, an absolute term, naturally creates an instinct toward an absolutist approach where mobility must inevitably be sacrificed in pursuit of the removal of all risk.
Vision Zero was adopted gradually by various countries and organizations after its inception in Sweden in 1997. In 1999 Norway adopted its version of Vision Zero. In 2010 the UN General Assembly proclaimed 2011-2020 as the ‘Decade of Action’ for road safety, incorporating Vision Zero principles.
By 2015 Vision Zero was acknowledged in the UN Sustainable Development Goals, with target 3.6 aiming to halve global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents by 2020. In 2017, the International Social Security Association (ISSA) launched the global campaign for Vision Zero at the XXI World Congress on Safety and Health at Work in Singapore.
In 2022 the Vision Zero Summit in Japan saw the adoption of the Tokyo Declaration on Vision Zero For All, calling on international organizations, governments, and other stakeholders to adhere to Vision Zero.
International organizations supporting Vision Zero include the World Health Organization (WHO), the International Labour Organisation (ILO), and the European Commission.
The move away from a pure road safety strategy and the integration of sustainability and environmental goals with Vision Zero is a relatively recent development.
Organizations are increasingly exploring the integration of Vision Zero (safety) and Net Zero (decarbonization) goals, framing them as inseparable components of a sustainable global transport system. The Vision Zero Network now encourages communities to “use comparative data to link social and environmental factors with traffic injury data to better understand connections and strategies for improvements”.
The International Social Security Association (ISSA) has expanded the Vision Zero concept to include environmental protection, as evidenced by their “7 Golden Rules to protect the environment and our future”. The opening sentence of the foreword for this document read as follows:
“ZERO is the new normal: ZERO accidents, ZERO diseases, ZERO harm, ZERO impact, ZERO emissions – Vision Zero.” How many absolutes can you fit in one sentence?
Consulting firms, such as Vision Zero Consult, now include sustainability and environmental considerations in their Vision Zero framework, focusing on minimizing carbon emissions, reducing waste, and addressing climate change.
The subversion of a pure road safety strategy is apparent even if you agree with the core principle of Vision Zero. Comparing a paper written in 1999 about Vision Zero and the most recent incarnations of the movement it is clear to see that although the original philosophy deliberately and explicitly refused to set a time specific target, recent incarnations, such as London’s Vision Zero plan, set specific deadlines (by 2041 in London) to create urgency.
This urgency is then used to justify a top-down, technocratic approach, with experts and authorities determining safety standards and enforcing them without discretion, rather than taking a collaborative and flexible approach, taking into account the needs and perspectives of all road users and avoiding a “one-size-fits-all” mentality.
Vision Zero Is A Con!
Contrary to what the Vision Zero cult would have you believe, crashes can never be eliminated entirely whilstever humans are involved. The Vision Zero response is to seek to eliminate crashes by 2040 by eliminating the human element. If we allow them to get their way, all vehicles will be electric, autonomous and self-driving controlled by 5G. No doub this is what the 20mph speed limits are preparing us for.
Conspiracy Theory? We think not! Vision Zero will enable Bill Gates and his globalist chums to consolidate their control of the world if we allow it.
>>> insert Bill Gates video seen at National Motor Museum
Maybe the Vision Zero people are closet eugenecists? Whatever the case I do not want to leave an impersonal world dominated by robots to my children and grandchildren especially when unelected globalist elites who would profit massively from this Orwellian world desparately want to impose it – So we, the humans, say NO!