International and intercultural differences in arguments used against road safety policy measures

Policy measures in the field of road safety are not easily implemented for several reasons. Interventions can be undertaken in a multitude of policy areas, but it is often uncertain how effective the measures are. Moreover, policymakers may be reluctant to implement road safety policy measures because of the expected high costs and/or perceived low public support. To understand the arguments used against policy measures for road safety, a survey was conducted in ten countries (China, the United States, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Austria, Sweden, Greece, France, Nigeria, and Argentina). Respondents were presented with ten possible road safety measures and asked whether they would support or oppose them, what arguments their opinion was based on, and what the consequence of the measure would be on them individually. This paper describes the main findings of the research and then zooms in on three counterarguments: restriction of mobility, discrimination, and unjustifiability of state interventions, as well as on three of the measures considered—compulsory use of ISA systems, mandatory cycle helmets, and screening of older motorists. With this research, previous results on the level of public support have been confirmed, and new insights have been gained. If people feel safe when using a particular transport mode, they are less conscious of the need for additional or stricter measures affecting their transport mode. The perceived restriction of human liberties, fear of discrimination, and resistance to state interventions fuel opposition against measures. Moreover, people from different countries vary in what they consider fair and unfair, which is linked to the national culture and social organization. Even if a measure was perceived to be unfair from a certain perspective (e.g., discrimination), some respondents supported the measure. Our research also illustrates that even people who recognize that a measure would be effective might oppose it because they think it is not justified from at least one perspective, for instance, an excessive restriction of freedom.