The traffic situation is alarming. On average, one person dies on our roads every week and five more are injured every day. While the European trend is generally positive — with traffic fatalities decreasing — ours is going in the opposite direction. This takes a serious toll on our people's sense of safety, not to mention the tragedy that directly affects a large number of friends and family members.

The growing trend in serious accidents has continued for the past three years. We have fallen behind on the goals set in the Traffic Safety Program 2016-2025 (LOP). At the same time, it must be acknowledged that if we look at an even longer period, the overall trend has been positive: in 1995, 332 people died on our roads (this figure was 69 in 2024 — ed).

It could also be that we expect to see immediate results from some development initiatives, but their impact takes time to materialize. The explanatory memorandum to the LOP implementation plan also points to this. For comparison, Sweden launched its systematic traffic safety program in 1997 and is now held up as an example to other countries in Europe. Of course, it's important to note that our starting point has been quite different from Sweden's due to the nature of our environment.

Our LOP is a solid and substantive document. It provides a good framework, with the implementation plan outlining key actions, responsible parties and so on. It takes a systemic approach — something that various studies have identified as a positive. These studies also describe the so-called traditional approach, which focuses almost exclusively on road users — their behavior, attitudes and changing those attitudes.

But road users are just one part of a comprehensive solution. The LOP addresses the road user field, which includes nine different measures — such as health, education and supervision. It also covers a safe traffic environment, with seven measures, and safe vehicles, with three measures. In other words, it's a thorough and evidence-based document.

In theory, this document should work and be effective. Unfortunately, when you compare it with the implementation plan reports, it becomes clear that, for various reasons, we haven't been able to carry out all the planned activities.

In 2021, 62 percent of the planned actions were fully implemented, while 38 percent were either not completed or only partially completed. The figures were the same in 2022: 62 percent completed, 38 percent unfulfilled. In 2023, the numbers were 58 percent completed and 42 percent unfulfilled; the same held true for 2024. The average over the last four years is 60 percent implemented, 40 percent not.

For instance, several activities planned for last year related to driver health (such as the medical certificate issue), which has been widely discussed and linked to older drivers. Unfortunately, these were not carried out. The plan had included replacing outdated automated traffic monitoring systems. A draft bill on a demerit point system was never prepared and an analysis of average speed measurement was also not done.

What are the reasons for these failures? Activities were deemed unjustified, some were simply not carried out (with no additional explanation), political consensus was lacking, some actions were implemented to a lesser extent, others didn't receive funding. Of course, this is what's called a "living document," and many actions do roll over into the next period.

It may also be that some of the originally planned actions were not particularly reasonable. Still, such an important program should at least anticipate agreements and funding for all parties involved. Sadly, that has not been the case, which inevitably hinders progress.

Of course, it's also worth highlighting that many necessary actions have been realized. For example, redesigning hazardous spots on state roads (albeit on a limited scale) and improvements related to rail safety. Still, it's fair to say that if we had implemented all LOP measures, we'd be in a better position today. After all, the current LOP has been in place for quite a while — ten years.

We need a new leap forward in our (traffic) safety philosophy. A lot has been done, yes, but we need clear progress — a developmental leap. Much of it comes down to funding, which is always a challenge.

Looking back, major breakthroughs in traffic safety — especially in terms of vehicles — happened in the last century. In the early 1900s, cars got brakes. Before that, someone had to walk in front of the vehicle with a red flag to warn others. Speeds, of course, didn't exceed those of a pedestrian. By mid-century, seat belts and airbags were introduced — although it took time for them to become standard.

The next stage is tied to technology, including artificial intelligence, which impacts more than just the vehicle — it influences the broader environment. It also affects enforcement as a key measure in the systemic approach. Many enforcement activities can be further automated, thereby increasing the risk of violators being caught. This clearly improves traffic safety and changes behavior.

Let's make a leap in enforcement through technology and automation. We're not getting more police officers and it would be irresponsible to allocate expensive human resources to tasks that machines and artificial intelligence can perform. A public debate has already begun around the adoption of additional technology — let's use that momentum.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!