Australia’s National Road Safety Strategy identifies the safety of disadvantaged road users as an important issue to address. This project investigates the relationship between disadvantage and road casualties in the wider community. Many studies have found a relationship between socioeconomic status and crash involvement, but the studies differ widely in their design and the measures used. The studies reviewed reinforce the conclusion of the European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) that relatively little is known about the relationship between social disadvantage and crash involvement. A number of Australian and New Zealand studies confirm high fatality and injury rates among Indigenous and Pacific Islander groups. Of particular interest is a Victorian finding that transport-related injuries are related to disadvantage, and that the highest injury rates are for the middle of the disadvantage range, corresponding with one of the main findings of the present study. Studies from England have commented extensively on the rationale, methods and delivery of the programs to address disadvantage, but have not assessed the outcomes. Recommendations for policy and the specifics of program delivery were reviewed. Negative binomial models were developed for South Australia and Victoria, the only two jurisdictions for which serious injury and postcode data were available. The models agreed well: in terms of disadvantage, the highest FSI rates were experienced by communities towards the middle of the range of disadvantage; in terms of remoteness, it was communities in the Inner Regional areas that had the highest FSI rates. A similar model was developed for NSW based on all casualties since the database does not distinguish between serious and other injuries. A different model emerged, showing a progressive increase in casualty rate with increasing disadvantage and major cities having the highest injury rate and very remote communities the lowest. Driver mentoring programs and other initiatives to assist disadvantaged groups to become qualified drivers appear to be the most widely available form of action to overcome disadvantage; programs are progressing well but their effects on crashes and offences remain to be evaluated. There is much scope to expand these programs. Other programs relate to the delivery of programs to improve road safety for Indigenous communities, newly arrived migrants and Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) communities. It was not possible to identify programs directed to the disadvantaged in general; programs have a focus on specific groups experiencing disadvantage. Most programs do not have a specific road safety focus, but have a wider agenda. Engagement is the key to successful programs; which depends on having culturally relevant and actionable messages delivered by credible communicators. The number and variety of organisations involved make it difficult to establish just how many people road safety programs for the disadvantaged reach, or the extent to which the disadvantaged benefit from mainstream programs. The sector as a whole is likely to benefit from a more coordinated approach in terms of information sharing between programs and identifying groups who could potentially benefit from programs. There is an established body of expertise in the health sector which is potentially applicable to communication with disadvantaged groups. In terms of programs to assist disadvantaged persons, the recommendations were: to continue and expand programs to mentor disadvantaged persons to become full licence holders, including programs for indigenous communities to continue programs directed to newly arrived migrants and CALD communities and to ensure they keep evolving to meet the changing needs of these communities to consider possible ways of ensuring better coordination and sharing of experience between programs to conduct a systematic review of communities that would benefit from existing programs to emphasise the importance of involving community leaders in programs, raise awareness of the importance of evaluation, and provide opportunities to develop evaluation skills. In terms of further investigating issues relating to disadvantage and crash involvement, the recommendation was to undertake further analysis and modelling to determine if, when all casualties are included in the modelling rather than just FSI, the models which emerge are similar to that found for New South Wales in the present study using all casualties. As NSW data which distinguishes between serious and other injuries accumulates, an analysis should be undertaken to determine if the relationship between FSI, social disadvantage and remoteness is the same as found in South Australia and Victoria. (Author/publisher)
Samenvatting