Norway has adopted an overall vision of zero killed or permanently harmed (Vision Zero) within all branches of the transport system. How Vision Zero has been implemented in the Norwegian road sector is examined. The road sector is the most open sector in the transport syst also the transport mode with the highest number of fatalities, permanent injuries etc, and therefore the area where Vision Zero is assumed to have the greatest impact. The main question is what changes have ensued from the adoption of Vision Zero. In order to understand how these processes come about, how Vision Zero is understood and interpreted by relevant stakeholders in society is investigated. The main obstacles for working towards Vision Zero within the National Road Administration (NRA) and in society as a whole are examined. The empirical input is 26 in interviews with different stakeholders. We also use data from interviews with the committee for transportation within the Norwegian parliament were also a practical level, the adoption of Vision Zero implies that the focus in road safety work has shifted from number of accidents to severity of accidents. Another practical consequence is that strategy documents (the national standards for road construction) now integrate issues related to traffic safety better than they did before. Within the NRA, it has become easier to introduce new safety measures since more resources are allocated to road safety work. Most of the improvements in road safety experienced after the introduction of Vision Zero have issued from constructing physical barriers in the road system and shifting priorities within the NRA.Those who are familiar with Vision Zero mostly perceive it as a good foundation for road safety work. All informants in the study agreed that Vision Zero has had positive effects, albeit to varying degrees. Politicians tend to see the Vision as a more abstract phenomenon than the other stakeholders. Public documents mostly ignore dilemmas associated with the realization of the vision, such as conflicting goals. The interviews indicate that the NRA is more aware of the dilemmas involved with the translation of the vision into practical efforts. They also tend to identify the Vision with a given practical content. The way the work with the Vision has been organized so far, may have led to a conception of the Vision as a phenomenon internal to the NRA, and relevant to the work of this organization only. The differences in perceptions of Vision Zero between the NRA and the political sphere might exacerbate this tendency. The public debate about Vision Zero has been very limited, meaning that different interpretations are allowed to co-exist unchallenged. One important consequence of this is that it is up to the stakeholders to define the agenda (A). For the covering abstract of the conference see E217780.
Samenvatting