IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v5y1998i3p185-192.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Casualty reduction or danger reduction: conflicting approaches or means to achieve the same ends?

Author

Listed:
  • Tight, Miles
  • Page, Matthew
  • Wolinski, Alan
  • Dixey, Rachael

Abstract

In Britain and elsewhere road safety professionals are increasingly considering approaches to improving safety based on reducing danger at source and promoting equity and accessibility for non-motorised road users. Road safety work has often traditionally been seen to focus overwhelmingly on casualty reduction through the use of engineering, education and enforcement and through various secondary safety measures such as seat belts. Much of the emphasis has been upon getting the vulnerable road users to bear the burden of responsibility for their own safety and through the promotion of secondary safety measures, largely focused on improving safety within vehicles. The aim of this paper is to consider these two approaches and to identify ways in which they might conflict and to what extent they are complementary to each other.

Suggested Citation

  • Tight, Miles & Page, Matthew & Wolinski, Alan & Dixey, Rachael, 1998. "Casualty reduction or danger reduction: conflicting approaches or means to achieve the same ends?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 185-192, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:5:y:1998:i:3:p:185-192
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967-070X(98)00016-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lim, Siew Hoon & Chi, Junwook, 2013. "Are cell phone laws in the U.S. effective in reducing fatal crashes involving young drivers?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 158-163.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:5:y:1998:i:3:p:185-192. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30473/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.