Unruly traffic

koenfucius

Nov 4

An overreliance on rules and rigid enforcement may reduce, rather than enhance, traffic safety

Most of us like things to be simple. Our brain burns around 1/5 of all the energy we consume, and if there is a way we can get by without too much thinking, we will tend to feel rather attracted to it. Unsurprising, therefore, that a sizeable portion of our behaviour is guided (if not dominated) by rules. A dress code at work (no collarless shirts except on dress-down Fridays), social customs (bring flowers and/or wine when you're invited to a dinner party), rules of etiquette (don't pass gas when you are there), not to mention The Law. Without such rules we can just follow, we'd have to consider continually what is, and is not appropriate. Unfortunately, rules have some inherent flaws.

Rules and (their) limits

Rules can almost never cover every possible eventuality. That is particularly relevant when the rules are related to safety – our own and that of others. Jobs that involve handling hazardous materials or operating equipment that, when misused, can cause serious damage, are almost always governed by strict rules and regulations. But they are not about rigidly and blindly sticking to the rules, nothing less, nothing more, regardless of the circumstances. Anyone doing such a job must also apply common sense and due diligence.

The same applies – or should apply – in traffic, notably regarding the use of speed limits. These tend to dominate the road safety discourse, but they also encourage binary thinking – below the speed = good, above the limit = bad. Recently, the Flemish minister president found himself in hot water, when, questioned by a talk show host, he admitted that sometimes he asks his driver to exceed the speed limit "and take the risk".

Which risk, though? Is it the risk of having an accident, or the risk of getting caught? The difference is quite relevant. While the latter drops to zero when the actual speed does not exceed the limit, the former is a rather fuzzier affair, in which the vehicle speed is one factor among many. It is true that, all else being equal, the risk will generally (but not always) increase with a higher speed. But it is not true that speed in itself is a good proxy for the risk.

Above the safety limit, or just inappropriate speed? (photo: Jeff Gates/Flickr CC BY NC ND 2.0)

The concept of inappropriate or excessive speed, without reference to the speed limit, seems much more pertinent. If a vehicle fails to stay on the road in a bend, or cannot be brought to a safe stop to avoid a collision, the speed at which it travels is clearly excessive. But the lowest speed at which this may happen is rarely exactly the prevailing speed limit, and in practice – taking into account the conditions of the road, and the conditions of the vehicle – it might just as well be below the statutory maximum speed as above.

Yet, responding to the minister president's utterance, the Flemish mobility minister stated that "the speed limit is the safety limit".Many of the reactions by other politicians referred to the need to obey the traffic code, thus implicitly referring to the statutory speed limit, and perpetuating the idea that only one thing truly matters: not exceeding it.

If traffic safety is the main concern, this can be a little problematic. Belgium is a complex country, with three different regions, and naturally with three different sets of statutory speed limits. In built-up areas, this is 50 km/h (30 mph) in Flanders and Wallonia, while in Brussels it is 30 km/h (20mph). On A- and B-roads without a central outside built-up areas, the speed limit is 70 km/h (45mph) in Brussels and Flanders, but 90 km/h (55mph) in Wallonia. There is something absurd about treating maximum speeds as "safety limits" in an absolute sense, if they can vary that much across different regions of a country the size of a large handkerchief (or 50% larger than Wales). And even disregarding the variety, there are undoubtedly plenty of situations – junctions, bends, crests - on each kind of road where the statutory limit is well above what is a safe speed, even in good weather. (For clarity's sake, the solution here would not be the introduction of even more safety limits!)

Rules vs. considered judgement

The trouble with rules is that they negate the existence of trade-offs and judgement: they eliminate nuance and make people focus on the consequences of either obeying or breaking the rules, rather than on cultivating safe behaviour. In a sense, they infantilize people, affirming that they are unable to make judgements and trade-offs, and hence cannot be responsible for making a judgement. Many people instinctively tend to resist such impositions (a phenomenon known as reactance). In combination with the illusion of superiority (well over 50% of drivers thinks that they are safer than average), this situation is unlikely to improve traffic safety. Neither drivers who drive as if any speed below the speed limit is safe, nor those who will only try not to get caught exceeding it really contribute to safe roads.

Drive with due care and attention, or else…! (photo: Leonard Bentley/Flickr CC BY SA 2.0

When I moved to the UK, I discovered that the traffic code there contains the traffic offences of driving without due care and attention and driving without due consideration for other road users. In 2019, these offences were recorded well over 4,000 times, leading to compulsory driver retraining courses, and often driving bans (they incur up to 9 penalty points, and accumulating 12 points means an automatic ban).

Does it make a difference? Traffic safety is, of course, a complex matter, and we cannot link one specific aspect of traffic law to specific outcomes. Yet, traffic does seem to be significantly safer in the UK than in Belgium. In 2019, the last 'normal' year before the COVID-19 pandemic changed everything, there were 37,719 collisions in Belgium of which 607 were fatal, with a total of 646 fatalities on the road. In the UK, the number of collisions was 117,536 (1658 fatal, with in total 1752 traffic fatalities). Scaled by population, Belgium had about 3,400 collisions per million people (of which 55 involved fatalities), the UK nearly 1800 (with 25 involving fatalities. The number of road traffic deaths per million people in Belgium was just under 60, in the UK it was 27.

It is unlikely that simply introducing a similar offence in the Belgian traffic code would halve the collision and casualty rate in Belgium just like that. But with what we know about what drives human behaviour and decision making, it might be beneficial.

Rules do have their place, but if they come to dominate our behaviour to the detriment of our own judgement, the ultimate effect may well end up the opposite of what is envisaged. Rules alone does not stop people driving like a lunatic.

Comment