Vision Zero and Other Road Safety Targets

Björnberg, Karin Edvardsson · 2022 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-23176-7_1-1

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

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

Summary

This chapter by Karin Edvardsson Björnberg addresses the rationality and effectiveness of goal-setting in road safety management, specifically examining the conditions under which targets like Vision Zero can successfully induce achievement. Motivated by the global public health crisis of road traffic fatalities—approximately 1.3 million deaths annually—the paper investigates why quantified goals are used and what criteria they must meet to be functional. The author reviews existing literature on Management by Objectives (MBO) in the public sector to determine how goals guide action, coordinate efforts among agents, and motivate organizational commitment. The paper employs a theoretical and review-based approach, synthesizing research from philosophy, management science, and road safety policy. It analyzes the history of road safety management, tracing the shift from behavior-focused interventions to systematic, institutionalized MBO frameworks. The core methodology involves applying established rationality criteria—such as precision, evaluability, approachability, and motivity—to road safety targets. The author distinguishes between criteria for individual goals and those for systems of goals, including completeness, consistency, and the optimal number of targets. The analysis also considers contextual factors, such as the stability of goals over time and the involvement of stakeholders in the goal-setting process. Key findings indicate that quantified road safety targets generally outperform qualitative ones in reducing accident rates, with highly ambitious targets yielding the best performance. However, the effectiveness of a goal depends heavily on its rationality. The paper argues that goals must possess directional, completive, and temporal precision to effectively guide action; vague goals, while sometimes politically expedient, hinder coordination and evaluation. Evaluability is crucial for providing feedback, adjusting goal difficulty, and establishing accountability. The author notes that while specific, challenging goals typically enhance performance, "do-your-best" or learning goals may be more appropriate in contexts where implementing agencies lack the knowledge to execute complex strategies. Furthermore, the paper highlights potential drawbacks of MBO, such as gaming behavior, though this risk varies by institutional design. The significance of this work lies in providing a structured framework for assessing the rationality of road safety policies. By outlining specific criteria for goal formulation, the paper offers guidance for policymakers aiming to implement effective Vision Zero strategies. It emphasizes that successful road safety management requires not only ambitious targets but also precise, evaluable, and consistent goal systems supported by adequate funding and monitoring mechanisms. This contributes to the broader field of public administration by clarifying how theoretical principles of goal-setting apply to critical safety outcomes.

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.

• comparative international
• fatality injury trends

Information type

What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).

• Empirical Findings: crash risk outcomes