Arguments Against Vision Zero: A Literature Review

Abebe, Henok; Hansson, Oskar; Björnberg, Karin Edvardsson · 2022 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-23176-7_3-1

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This literature review systematically identifies, categorizes, and assesses arguments against Vision Zero, a road safety policy adopted in Sweden in 1997 and subsequently expanded globally. The authors address the lack of systematic investigation into criticisms of Vision Zero, despite its widespread adoption and moral appeal. The study aims to clarify the nature of these criticisms to facilitate constructive discussion on safety improvements. The review covers academic research, reports, and policy documents from the last two decades, retrieved via multiple bibliographic databases, focusing primarily on road traffic but also including other safety sectors like public health and industrial workplaces. The authors first define Vision Zero as both a goal and a strategy. As a goal, it asserts that no one should be killed or seriously injured in the road transport system, prioritizing safety over mobility and cost containment. As a strategy, it shifts responsibility from individual road users to system designers (governments and manufacturers), assuming human fallibility is unavoidable and that technology and infrastructure can be designed to prevent serious consequences from human errors. The policy rests on four central assumptions: the ethical unacceptability of preventable deaths, the inevitability of human error, the assignment of ultimate responsibility to system designers, and the capacity of technology to solve most safety problems. The review classifies criticisms into three major categories: moral, rationality-based, and operational. Moral criticisms argue that Vision Zero is misguided because it seeks a risk-free society, conflicts with individual liberty, or wrongly prioritizes safety over other values. Some critics claim it is ethically acceptable for people to die on roads if they voluntarily engage in risky activities, or that the policy is paternalistic and inequitable. Rationality-based criticisms contend that the goal of zero fatalities is unrealistic, imprecise, and potentially counterproductive by demotivating agents who perceive the goal as unachievable. Operational criticisms focus on implementation issues, such as unreliable accident statistics, neglect of accident probability, and debates over whether too much or too little responsibility is assigned to drivers versus system designers. The authors assess these 13 identified arguments, concluding that six are useful for constructive discussion. They reject the claim that Vision Zero aims for a perfect, risk-free society as a misconception, noting that the policy accepts accidents as inevitable but seeks to prevent serious injuries. The review highlights that while some moral and rationality-based criticisms rely on flawed premises or misunderstandings of the policy’s scope, others raise valid concerns about equity, paternalism, and the practical challenges of implementation. The study contributes to the field by providing a structured framework for understanding the ethical and practical debates surrounding Vision Zero, aiding policymakers and researchers in refining safety strategies.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-26; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• traffic safety culture