Ethical Dimensions of Road Traffic Safety: A Public Health Perspective

Road traffic safety is a global concern that has significant implications for public health, societal well-being, and ethical obligations. Annually, road traffic accidents continue to claim not less than 1.2 million lives globally, with injuries being inflicted on limitless others, disrupting their livelihoods and putting immense burden on healthcare systems. The urgency of addressing this issue is not only a practical necessity but also a moral obligation that falls under the purview of bioethics. This article examines the convergence of road traffic safety and bioethics, exploring the ethical considerations in addressing RTAs through public health policies. Key bioethical principles, including equity, autonomy, non-maleficence, and justice, are analyzed in the context of resource allocation, prevention strategies, and public safety interventions. Ethical frameworks such as principlism, utilitarianism, and public health ethics are applied to evaluate interventions like mandatory seatbelt laws, infrastructure development, and driver accountability. Furthermore, the article emphasizes the importance of cultural and contextual sensitivity in designing inclusive policies and highlights the role of communities in fostering sustainable road safety practices. By integrating bioethical perspectives into transportation management, this study advocates for a balanced approach to reducing traffic-related fatalities while preserving individual rights and promoting societal welfare.

Introduction

Road Traffic Accidents (RTA) have continued to be a worldwide leading issue owing to its leading cause of mortality and morbidity globally, claiming approximately 1.35 million lives annually, according to the World Health Organization [1]. Globally, RTA remains one of the major leading causes of death, especially among the 15-29 years age range [2]. This has caused a decline in economic growth and losses in human power. Specifically, in low- and middle-income (developing nations) countries like Nigeria, the burden of road traffic incidents is disproportionately high due to limited enforcement of safety standards, inadequate infrastructure, and public indifference to safety practices. Most of the roads in developing countries are in a sorry state, posing a threat to road users. Furthermore, user behavior, especially drivers, is risky, which confirms the assertion that drivers’ behavior contributes to over 70% of road traffic accidents due to their aberrant driving behaviors [3,4]. The studies viz., Shi, et al. [5] Taiwo, et al. [6,7], and Taiwo, et al. [8] have reported the aberrant driving behaviours of drivers. Some significant accident contributors include overspeeding, distracted driving due to alcohol/drugs, and infrastructure deficiency. Other causes of RTA include environmental [9] and mechanical factors [10]. This has affected pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists to varying degrees. The ethical responsibility to minimize preventable harm underscores the importance of integrating bioethical principles into road traffic safety policies.

The public health methodology aimed at diminishing Road Traffic Accidents (RTAs) incorporates the “Safe System” paradigm, which explores the importance of secure roadways, vehicles, and conduct, along with proficient post-collision response mechanisms. Nevertheless, the attainment of these goals is frequently impaired by systemic impediments, comprising deficient enforcement of traffic regulations, poor road infrastructures, restricted accessibility to emergency medical services, and insufficient health infrastructure.

Beyond the epidemiological and economic dimensions, RTAs raise significant bioethical issues related to the prevention, management, and mitigation of their impacts on individuals and communities. Consequently, despite the profound impact of road traffic mortality and malaise on public health, mainly in developing (low- and middle-income) nations, ethical issues are often neglected in decision-making processes at various levels [12]. This article explores the intersection of RTAs and bioethics, emphasizing the ethical considerations in public health policies, resource allocation, and societal responsibilities.

Bioethical implications of RTAs in public health

Equity and justice

The unparalleled distribution of road traffic fatalities indicates significant ethical concerns regarding justice and equity. Vulnerable populations in most low-income countries seldom have access to safe transport systems and emergency care [12,13]. Vision Zero, an innovative framework for road safety, emerged in Sweden during the late 1990s. This moral paradigm was formulated to eradicate fatalities and severe injuries related to road traffic by emphasizing the primacy of human life over alternative factors, such as velocity and convenience. The methodology is founded upon the principle that transportation systems should be engineered to accommodate human fallibility and that accountability for road safety is collectively borne by policymakers, engineers, and users of the road.

The effectiveness of Vision Zero in Sweden has catalyzed its global proliferation, with New York City launching its own Vision Zero initiative in 2014. In New York, the framework was tailored to tackle urban traffic safety issues, including pedestrian fatalities and elevated traffic congestion. This global resonance accentuates the universal relevance of Sweden’s ethical framework for road safety, illustrating how bioethical principles—such as beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice—can propel transformative public health initiatives. The Vision Zero initiative reveals that equity considerations are often overlooked in policy design, leading to unequal distribution of life-saving interventions [12]. This poses queries on resource allocation fairness and the moral responsibility of governments to prioritize road safety and healthcare accessibility. In Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations are faced with notable barriers to accessing compensation and healthcare following road traffic injuries [14]. Successful city-led approaches, such as those in Fortaleza and Addis Ababa, demonstrate the importance of inclusive policy frameworks that engage local communities in the planning process [15]. In addressing RTAs, relevant policies must ensure that interventions are inclusive and do not inordinately benefit privileged groups at the expense of marginalized populations.

Autonomy vs. public safety

The oversight of driving conduct, encompassing obligatory seat belt usage, helmet legislation, and constraints on alcohol intake, frequently places individual autonomy in opposition to public safety. Measures like seat belts in aviation have faced little opposition, contrasting with vehement resistance to speed limits and drunk driving prohibitions, which are paramount for public safety [16]. According to the study of Anderson, et al. [17], mandatory seat belt laws have been shown to reduce traffic fatalities by 5 to 9%. Similarly, Du, et al. [18] reported that helmet legislation significantly increases helmet use and decreases traumatic brain injuries among motorcyclists and cyclists, highlighting the effectiveness of such laws in promoting safety. Although these interventions have demonstrated efficacy in diminishing mortality rates, they may be construed as paternalistic, thereby constraining personal liberties. Striking a balance between honoring individual rights and the imperative to safeguard public health constitutes a significant ethical dilemma.

Resource allocation and triage ethics

Post-accident medical care often necessitates complex determinations concerning the distribution of constrained healthcare resources. The type of medical facility (government vs. private) significantly affects care access, with financial resources playing a critical role in determining the choice of care [19]. For example, in scenarios involving mass casualties, emergency medical personnel are required to assess and prioritize patients according to the gravity of their injuries, the likelihood of survival, and the resources at their disposal. These triage assessments, albeit essential, engender ethical quandaries about equity and the intrinsic value of human existence. Decision support systems and data utilization enhance the efficiency of resource distribution, allowing for better management of constrained resources [20].

Prevention and responsibility

Ethical considerations encompass the obligations of various stakeholders in the mitigation of road traffic accidents (RTAs) [21]. Governments, automotive manufacturers, urban planners, and individual motorists each possess distinct responsibilities. For instance, the ethical principle of nonmaleficence compels policymakers to devise infrastructure and enforce legislation aimed at minimizing potential harm. Likewise, manufacturers bear the responsibility to guarantee the safety of their vehicles, while drivers are required to comply with traffic regulations to prevent jeopardizing the safety of others [11,21]. Persons involved in road traffic can contribute to improving road safety through their responsibility, which refers to awareness or responsiveness, character, ethics and ethical behavior, and customs. Drivers and pedestrians have the moral duty while driving to use seat belts, comply with traffic laws and safety requirements, and have the responsibility not to harm- thus avoiding putting their lives and others in jeopardy.

Cultural and contextual sensitivities

Ethical deliberations in public health necessitate the consideration of cultural and societal frameworks. For example, the implementation of regulations about helmet or seat belt usage may be faced with opposition in societies where such behaviors are not regularly practiced [22]. Consequently, efficacious public health initiatives must be attuned to cultural distinctions involving local populations to guarantee both acceptance and long-term viability.

Ethical frameworks for addressing RTAs

Bioethics provides several frameworks to address the ethical challenges associated with RTAs: Ethics deals with issues of rights, obligations, duties, and responsibilities. It also comprises theories and discussions about what activity is right or wrong. These concepts and issues find application in the field of road traffic safety. A basic norm of traffic ethics is: “Think of yourself and others!” [21].

Principlism

This theoretical framework underscores four fundamental principles—autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice—as essential guides for ethical decision-making processes. The principles aim to guide ethical decision-making, especially in family medicine, where they can aid in navigating diverse ethical dilemmas [23]. For instance, the promotion of road safety is congruent with the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence, whereas the assurance of equitable access to healthcare embodies the principle of justice. Notwithstanding the progress in technology, the aforementioned ethical principles persist in their significance for preserving the humanistic aspects of healthcare and enhancing the dynamics of physician-patient interactions [23].

Utilitarianis

Regulatory measures such as speed limits or prohibitions on alcohol consumption may be appraised through the lens of utilitarianism, which emphasizes the maximization of societal benefits (e.g., lives preserved) while concurrently minimizing potential harms. Utilitarian decision analysis pertinent to regulatory choices necessitates the assessment of utility, which is distinct from financial outcomes [24].

Social contract theory

This conceptual framework highlights the collective obligation of society to maintain road safety, advocating for a model of shared accountability that encompasses individuals, governmental entities, and corporate bodies. This aligns with the social responsibility theory applied to vulnerable road users, revealing stakeholders’ roles in contributing to road safety [25].

Public health ethics

This methodological approach places the welfare of populations above individual preferences, thereby providing a rationale for interventions that may restrict personal liberties in pursuit of the collective good. It often grapples with balancing population welfare against individual liberties. Kass [26] proposes a framework for the ethical analysis of public health interventions, highlighting the need to reduce morbidity or mortality while minimizing burdens and promoting fairness. Faden & Shebaya [27] present five key reasons for implementing public health interventions, which include promoting overall benefit, enabling collective action, and preventing harm. Similarly, Childress, et al. [28] highlight fundamental ethical principles and conditions that justify public health policies, emphasizing factors like effectiveness and proportionality.

Bioethical perspectives on road traffic safety

Non-maleficence and preventable harm

Bioethics emphasizes the principle of non-maleficence—“do not harm.” [29]. It emphasizes a restriction against inflicting harm on others unless justified by specific circumstances. The preventable nature of many traffic accidents demands that governments and stakeholders prioritize interventions like road infrastructure improvement, driver training, and strict enforcement of traffic laws. Ethical lapses in policy implementation or negligence result in avoidable harm to individuals and communities.

Justice and equitable access

Access to safe roads and effective traffic management systems is a fundamental right. However, inequities in urban planning often leave rural or underprivileged areas more vulnerable to road hazards. Studies reveal notable disparities in road safety and hazard exposure between urban and rural regions. Rural populations experience fatality rates nearly six times greater than those in urban areas [30]. These differences are further reflected in socioeconomic factors, as lower-income communities face vehicle occupant fatality rates 3.5 times higher than their wealthier counterparts [30]. An ethical approach necessitates addressing these disparities to ensure that all populations benefit from safety interventions.

Case studies demonstrating the application of bioethical principles in road traffic safety

Justice: Equitable access to road safety infrastructure

The concept of justice underscores the importance of fairness and equity in the distribution of resources, particularly in road safety initiatives. A prominent illustration of this is the “Safe System Approach” adopted in Bogotá, Colombia, which sought to rectify entrenched inequalities within urban transportation frameworks. The municipality established the “TransMilenio” bus rapid transit system, supplemented by the development of extensive cycling infrastructure [31]. These measures strategically focused on low-income districts and regions characterized by elevated rates of traffic-related casualties, thereby ensuring that marginalized populations had fair access to safer transportation alternatives. By reallocating resources to underrepresented communities, this initiative exemplified a principled commitment to justice through the promotion of equity and the minimization of disparities in road safety results.

Beneficence: Community-driven traffic safety interventions

Sweden’s “Vision Zero” initiative serves as a quintessential representation of the principle of beneficence operationalized. Initiated in 1997 [32]. The program aimed to diminish traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries via a comprehensive approach that prioritized human life and welfare as paramount. Central strategies encompassed the redesign of roadways to alleviate hazards (e.g., implementing median barriers and roundabouts), enforcing reduced speed limits within urban locales, and establishing safer pedestrian crossings. Furthermore, Vision Zero actively engaged local communities in the identification of high-risk zones and the formulation of suitable interventions. This ethical paradigm highlights the principle of beneficence by proactively striving to avert harm and enhance public safety through systemic modifications.

Autonomy: Empowering vulnerable road users

The Dutch government has historically advocated for road safety initiatives that honor the autonomy of road users by equipping them with the requisite knowledge and resources to make informed choices [33]. For instance, cycling safety campaigns in the Netherlands have concentrated on educational efforts aimed at both youthful and elderly cyclists, instructing them on traffic regulations, safe riding techniques, and recognition of high-risk scenarios such as navigating intersections. By emphasizing individual autonomy, these initiatives empower road users to assume responsibility for their safety while simultaneously cultivating a culture of reciprocal respect among all participants in the roadway environment.

Comprehensive application: Campaigns prioritizing vulnerable road users

In the United Kingdom, the “Think! Road Safety” campaign embodies a multi-principle ethical framework [34]. The campaign employs targeted interventions to safeguard vulnerable road users, including children, cyclists, and motorcyclists. For example, school zones are enhanced with traffic-calming devices such as speed bumps and flashing signage to protect children. Concurrently, media campaigns aim to educate drivers on the importance of sharing the road safely with cyclists and motorcyclists, stressing the necessity of mutual respect and the reduction of collision risks. These initiatives integrate justice (by prioritizing at-risk groups), beneficence (through proactive harm mitigation), and autonomy (by educating and empowering road users).

The ethical consideration in addressing RTAs through public health policies is shown in Table 1.

Recommendations

Driver education and accountability

Robust driver education initiatives are imperative for cultivating a culture of road safety. Ethical considerations necessitate the provision of training that is universally accessible, inclusive, and supplemented by accountability mechanisms, such as the implementation of periodic license renewals contingent upon safety evaluations.

Technology and ethical innovation

Cutting-edge technologies, including vehicle telematics, autonomous driving systems, and predictive accident models, present viable solutions. Nevertheless, ethical dilemmas concerning data privacy, financial accessibility, and the reliability of such systems must be systematically addressed to promote trust and equity.

Community engagement

Interventions at the community level, including awareness campaigns and the engagement of local leaders, are vital for the promotion of safe practices. Ethical public health methodologies should empower communities to advocate for improved road conditions and adherence to regulatory frameworks. The Role of Communities in Road Safety. Communities are integral to the success of road safety initiatives. Ethical public health strategies should empower local leaders, schools, and advocacy groups to champion safety practices. Community-driven interventions, such as road safety clubs in schools or neighborhood watch programs, create a shared sense of responsibility and accountability.

Conclusion

The integration of bioethical principles into road traffic safety provides a robust framework for addressing the multifaceted challenges posed by RTAs. By emphasizing equity, justice, and non-maleficence, stakeholders can design policies and interventions that not only reduce fatalities but also promote fairness and accountability. Collaboration among policymakers, public health professionals, and community leaders is critical in achieving sustainable and inclusive road safety outcomes. Ultimately, adopting an ethical approach to transportation management has the potential to save lives, foster social equity, and build a culture of shared responsibility for public safety.

1. World Health Organization. Global status report on road safety. Global Status Report on Road Safety. 2023;15(4). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1136/ip.2009.023697
2. Deresse T, Eshete A, Hailu M, Dessalegn M. Fatal road traffic accidents and associated factors in North Shewa Zone, Central Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2023;33(6):971-978. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4314/ejhs.v33i6.7
3. Hossain S, Maggi E, Vezzulli A. Factors influencing the road accidents in low and middle-income countries: a systematic literature review. Int J Injury Control Saf Promot. 2024;31(2):294-322. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2024.2319618
4. You HW, Abdul Rahman A, Hendri Dwisatrya LH. Dataset of driving behaviours in Selangor, Malaysia. Data Brief. 2020;31:105783. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2020.105783
5. Shi J, Hussain M, Peng DD. Aberrant driving behaviours among ride-hailing drivers: direct and indirect effects of personal attributes and work-condition factors. Int J Crashworthiness. 2020. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13588265.2020.1858646
6. Taiwo OA, Hassan SA, Mohsin R, Mahmud N. Truck drivers' behaviour on road traffic crash involvement: a structural equation modeling approach. 2024;7(5):1-10. Available from: https://doi.org/10.32629/jai.v7i5.1549
7. Taiwo OA, Hassan S, Mohsin R, Mahmud N. Road traffic accidents involvement among commercial taxi drivers in Nigeria: structural equation modelling approach. 2024. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4560002
8. Taiwo OA, Mohsin RB, Hassan SA, Mahmud N. Validation of driver behavior questionnaire on Nigerian truck drivers: a structural equation modeling approach. 2023. Available from: https://doi.org/10.55463/issn.1674-2974.50.1.13
9. Zheng C, Zhao X. Analysis of the relevance degree of the influencing factors of traffic accidents. ACM Int Conf Proc Ser. 2023:10-15. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1145/3656766.3656768
10. Krishnakumar T, Gireeshan MG. Anti-collision vehicles. Int J Pharm Tech. 2015;7(1):8415-8418. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84941009655&partnerID=40&md5=a04872134c73c2bf18f03445eaa231ac
11. Cociu S. Ethical approach to road traffic injuries prevention. Stud Univ Babes-Bolyai Bioethica. 2021;66(Special Issue):46-46. Available from: https://doi.org/10.24193/subbbioethica.2021.spiss.23
12. Abebe HG. Ensuring equity and social justice in road safety in low-income countries: beyond the safe systems approach. Injury Prev. 2024;30(Suppl 1):A151. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2024-SAFETY.362
13. Eisner ZJ, Smith NJ, Wylie C. Transportation and equipment needs for emergency medical services development in low- and middle-income countries. Surgery. 2024;176(2):521-523. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2024.03.050
14. Hossain S, Moeller H, Sharpe P, Campbell M, Kimlin R, Porykali B, Shannon B, Gray J, Afzali H, Harrison JE, Ivers RQ, Ryder C. Characterising the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patient journey after a serious road traffic injury and barriers to access to compensation: a protocol. Injury Prev. 2024;30(1):75-80. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1136/ip-2023-044997
15. Prakash A, Lanza ID La. Projects to programs and policies – safer streets for all. Injury Prev. 2024;30(Suppl 1):A155-A156.
16. Hansson SO. Liberty, paternalism, and road safety. In: Edvardsson Björnberg K, Belin M-Å, Hansson SO, Tingvall C, editors. The Vision Zero Handbook: Theory, Technology, and Management for a Zero Casualty Policy. Springer International Publishing. 2020;1-38. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23176-7_6-1
17. Anderson DM, Liang Y, Sabia JJ. Mandatory seatbelt laws and traffic fatalities: A reassessment. NBER Working Paper Series. 2023;15843. Available from: http://www.nber.org/papers/w30851
18. Du RY, LoPresti MA, García RM, Lam S. Primary prevention of road traffic accident-related traumatic brain injuries in younger populations: A systematic review of helmet legislation. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2020;25(4):361-374. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.10.peds19377
19. Ahuja R, Tiwari G, Gupta A, Chatterjee N. Accessibility determinants of post-crash medical care utilization in Delhi, India. Injury Prev. 2024;30(Suppl 1):A86. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2024-SAFETY.203
20. Naz MI, Rajper S, Ali A, Khan MF, Asif R, Mehmood MH, Sahawneh N, Kalra D. Framework of decision support system for effective resource management. In: 2023 International Conference on Business Analytics for Technology and Security (ICBATS); 2023. p. 1-7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBATS57792.2023.10111307
21. Cociu S, Deleu R, Rimis C, Cebanu S, Cherecheș RM. Ethical aspects in road traffic safety and driving behavior change. J Intercult Manag Ethics. 2022;5(1):57-69. Available from: https://doi.org/10.35478/jime.2022.1.08
22. Tiwari G. Road safety: Laws and implementation. Int J Injury Control Saf Promot. 2013;20(4):305-306. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2013.866728
23. Silva ACF, Caniço HP, Lopes SR, Silvestre M. Principlism in the daily practice of family medicine. Rev Port Clin Geral. 2021;37(3):214-221. Available from: https://doi.org/10.32385/rpmgf.v37i3.12693
24. Clarke H. The economist’s way of thinking about alcohol policy. Agenda - J Policy Anal Reform. 2008;15(2):29-42. Available from: https://doi.org/10.22459/ag.15.02.2008.06
25. Obiorah S. The plight of the vulnerable road users in Nigeria. Boldscholar. 2023;I:245-261. Available from: https://boldscholar.com/ArticleDetails/104
26. Kass NE. An ethics framework for public health. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(11):1776-1782. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.91.11.1776
27. Faden RR, Shebaya S. Public health programs and policies: ethical justifications. In: Mastroianni AC, Kahn JP, Kass NE, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Public Health Ethics. Oxford University Press; 2019. p. 0. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190245191.013.3
28. Childress JF, Faden RR, Gaare RD, Gostin LO, Kahn JP, Bonnie RJ, Nancy E. Public health ethics. Public Bioethics. 2019. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:4322360
29. DeGrazia D, Millum J. Nonmaleficence and negative constraints. In: A Theory of Bioethics. 2021. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009026710.004
30. Marshall WE, Ferenchak NN. Assessing equity and urban/rural road safety disparities in the US. J Urbanism. 2017;10(4):422-441. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2017.1310748
31. Combs TS. Examining changes in travel patterns among lower wealth households after BRT investment in Bogotá, Colombia. J Transp Geogr. 2017;60:11-20. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.02.004
32. Kristianssen A-C, Andersson R, Belin M-Å, Nilsen P. Swedish Vision Zero policies for safety – A comparative policy content analysis. Saf Sci. 2018;103:260-269. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.11.005
33. Wegman F, Aarts L, Bax C. Advancing sustainable safety. National road safety outlook for The Netherlands for 2005-2020. Saf Sci. 2008;46(2):323-343. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2007.06.013
34. Franklin K. Actively working on passive safety. Highways. 2024;93(4):38-39. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85195456046&partnerID=40&md5=bbd00cee10d9ace80344a37ff02943e5
35. Trabelsi O, Kovács TA. Safety requirement of vehicle’s design and testing methods. In: Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications: Vol. Part F2433. Springer; 2024. p. 211-222. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47990-8_19
36. Pucher J, Buehler R. Making cycling irresistible: Lessons from the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. Transp Rev. 2008;28(4):495-528. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640701806612
37. Lee G. Calls to remove white lines could prove deadly. Highways. 2007;76(9):39-44. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-36849012486&partnerID=40&md5=f0e957046caea566d261b7e8bea3cbf9
38. Quilter J, McNamara L. Zero tolerance drug driving laws in Australia: A gap between rationale and form? Int J Crime Justice Soc Dem. 2017;6(3):47-71. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v6i3.416