With this discussion paper we intend to show the importance of the notion `societal feasibility' in the discussion on the possibilities of measures and instruments for improving traffic safety. This topic is immensely policy relevant: political decision-making mechanisms as well as efficiency questions and the issue of what the people think and want, are involved. Concerning feasibility the concept 'carrying capacity' is used as well. Generally this refers to the support of people involved for a certain subject or measure, but it is seldom clarified where the borders of this support are to be set is not so clear. We think that the existing carrying capacity doesn't have to show itself in behaviour, but that behaviour can be an indication. On the other hand the carrying capacity cannot be narrowed down to the mere acceptance of a policy measure. There are always more general, abstract attitudes and viewpoints related to social life at play. Within the notion carrying capacity we can differentiate along the social actors holding different positions within the feasibility evaluation. So we can talk about carrying capacity on a social, public, political, institutional and administrative level. Social carrying capacity is about the aggregate of the opinions of individual citizens in relation to traffic and road safety. This carrying capacity captures the support or resistance from the whole population, and can be considered very important. Its perception is seen as public carrying capacity. This public carrying capacity is the so-called public opinion, politicians refer to in order to legitimise their choices. On the other hand what goes for public opinion has in itself an effect on people's attitudes. Political carrying capacity is very important too. As democratic representatives, politicians should channel and implement people's wants into policy. They can stand up for certain measures, or put road safety on the agenda in a more general sense. Carrying capacity is best seen in a dynamic way. Through information, financial incentives, awareness promotion and negotiation procedures it can be enhanced. Very important in relation to the feasibility of measures is the economic feasibility. This indicated what, given the results of cost-effectiveness analyses and the available budgets, can be allotted to safety measures. On an individualised level it also involves the willingness to pay for an increase of safety. This discussion paper mainly deals with social feasibility. It is not easy to state how large public support must quantitatively to speak about sufficient carrying capacity. One must look under the surface of the opinions for and against. That for a layered carrying capacity concept is elaborated. The basic dispositions reflect general views on mobility and transport. On these basic dispositions the other carrying capacity layers are built. Furthermore the carrying capacity is constituted by the population's definition of the problem. If there is no acknowledgement that something's wrong, there can be no carrying capacity for measures. It is probable that this definition will depend on one's predominant role in road traffic. After the definitional problem there's the attribution of responsibility. Road safety is a collective good. This triggers the question whether the authorities should be active optimising it, or if individual responsibility can be relied upon. In the attitudes toward road safety more abstract values and norms are concretized. This way they find themselves between the basic dispositions and actual behaviour. The attitude toward road safety policy is explained by the elements mentioned before, but also by the attitude toward the government in general. It is in that attitude on road safety policy that we can find the actual question of acceptance. The last component of carrying capacity, where all the others exert influence, is the behaviour in relation to road safety. European research seems to indicate a huge road safety consciousness in our country (SARTREproject). Traffic accidents lead the list of perceived social problems. Almost nine out of ten active car drivers states that speeding and drinking and driving are often to always a factor in road accidents. However when the theme gets more applied and the impact of possible measures on their lives becomes more apparent, a different picture emerges. This goes to show how important it is to study the different carrying capacity layers. From the viewpoint that carrying capacity is something dynamic, we can say that it is something that can be worked upon. Depending on the scale one is working on, different methods can be appropriate. For a specific engineering measure on a certain spot, an information and negotiation forum with people living nearby can be beneficial. The policymakers can come to know new aspects, and the application of the measure can take people's wants into account. For the social carrying capacity this is more difficult. Knowing the population's view can be attained through polling or referenda, but these do not indicate what should be worked on in order to enhance the support. Having an idea of the layered carrying capacity can certainly be helpful in this respect. (A)
Samenvatting