Safe System Approach: At least 177,175 people died on Indian roads in 2024, 4,285 more than the previous year’s count. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways recorded 487,707 crashes, 1.5% more than in 2023. Crash investigations generally point to the responsibility on the driver. Police records cite speeding, drink driving, failure to wear a helmet or another violation. The findings does not account for the road on which the accident occurred. The driver does not decide where a highway cuts through a village, whether pedestrians are given a protected crossing, or how long an ambulance takes to arrive.
Those decisions are made by road agencies, police, transport departments and health authorities. Their part in a death receives much less scrutiny. The driver is named in the police report. The engineer who approved an unsafe junction usually is not.
The Safe System Approach is meant to correct this failure. It asks whether a road has been built so that an ordinary mistake does not end in death. India’s road safety policy has yet to apply that test.
READ | Road safety crisis: Why accident deaths keep rising
Safe System Approach changes responsibility
The Safe System Approach rests on three facts. People make mistakes. The human body can withstand only limited crash forces. Roads and vehicles can be designed to keep those forces below fatal levels.
This changes the question asked after a crash. Instead of stopping at whether the driver was speeding or inattentive, investigators must examine why the road permitted that speed, whether its design protected pedestrians and two-wheeler users, whether the vehicle reduced the impact, and whether an ambulance and trauma centre were available.
The approach also sets a harder standard for public agencies. A transport system that routinely produces deaths cannot be judged adequate merely because it moves vehicles faster or adds road capacity. Safety has to be built into road design, vehicle regulation, speed limits and emergency care.
India’s present framework is not organised on these lines. Departments responsible for roads, transport, policing and health work through separate budgets and targets. A Public Works Department may complete a road project without being accountable for subsequent fatalities. Police records usually assign fault to a road user. Hospitals treat the injured but rarely feed patient outcomes back into road or vehicle design.
Shared responsibility remains an aspiration unless these institutional boundaries are crossed.
READ | Rusty rails: Train accident exposes chasm between ambitions and realities
India’s road safety burden is concentrated
The 2024 figures show where intervention is most urgent. People aged 18–45 accounted for about two-thirds of road deaths. Around 83% of those killed were in the 18–60 age group. India is losing workers during their most productive years.
Two-wheeler riders and pedestrians form the largest group of victims. They share roads with cars, buses and heavy trucks but receive little physical protection. Helmet rules cannot compensate for highways without safe crossings, service roads or barriers separating local traffic from fast-moving vehicles.
Rural India accounted for about 71% of fatalities. Higher speeds combine with weak trauma care and longer ambulance response times. A survivable injury can become fatal before the victim reaches a hospital.
Excessive speed was linked to roughly 70% of fatalities. Non-use of helmets was associated with 54,122 deaths, while failure to use seat belts was linked to 14,466 deaths. National highways form a small part of India’s road network but accounted for more than a third of fatalities.
These are connected failures. A road that allows high speeds through a settlement, provides no protected crossing and lies far from trauma care compounds the consequences of a single error.
Safe roads, speeds and vehicles
Safe System implementation begins with road design. Median barriers can prevent head-on collisions. Protected crossings and refuge islands reduce pedestrian exposure. Segregated lanes protect cyclists and two-wheeler users. Rumble strips, guardrails, safe shoulders and clearer junction layouts can reduce both crash risk and impact severity.
Road safety audits should cover planning, design, construction and operation. Audits conducted after completion are too late to correct expensive design errors. Their findings must also bind the agency responsible for the road. An audit without a repair budget or deadline becomes another compliance document.
Speed limits should reflect road use and the protection available to vulnerable users. A highway passing through a market, village or school zone cannot retain open-road speeds merely because its engineering classification has not changed.
Vehicle regulation has improved through airbags, anti-lock braking systems and stronger crash standards. Further gains will depend on electronic stability control, intelligent speed assistance, pedestrian protection and safer commercial vehicles. Enforcement must cover the condition of the vehicle, not only the conduct of its driver.
Helmet and seat-belt laws still require consistent enforcement. Licensing tests, action against drink driving and restrictions on distracted driving remain necessary. But education campaigns cannot repair a dangerous junction or shorten the distance to a trauma centre.
Post-crash care deserves equal weight. Ambulance dispatch, trained first responders, hospital coordination and rehabilitation determine whether an injured person survives and whether the survivor returns to work. The “golden hour” cannot be protected by a helpline without ambulances, trained staff and designated trauma facilities.
From pilot projects to institutional practice
Safe System adoption usually begins with political backing and a small number of visible projects. India should use high-fatality corridors and districts to demonstrate how road engineering, speed management, enforcement and trauma care work together.
Such pilots should cover more than isolated black spots. Treating the site of the last crash may shift the risk a few kilometres down the road. Corridor-level work can identify recurring hazards, unsafe junctions, settlements exposed to highway traffic and gaps in emergency response.
The next task is institutionalisation. Road safety cannot depend on one minister, district collector or police commissioner. Departments need common targets, named responsibility and budgets tied to reductions in deaths and serious injuries. Crash data should be combined with hospital records so that the government can track disability, rehabilitation and the long-term cost borne by families.
Funding also has to move from short campaigns to routine expenditure. Road agencies should budget for safety audits and corrective works. State transport departments need trained staff. Police require equipment and procedures for speed enforcement. Health departments must map trauma-care gaps along major corridors.
READ | Speed kills: A time to remember road traffic accident victims
The Union government describes its policy through the four Es: education, engineering, enforcement and emergency care. The Safe System Approach gives these measures a common purpose. Each must compensate when another part fails.
Safe System lessons from other countries
Sweden’s Vision Zero and the Netherlands’ Sustainable Safety programme established the modern Safe System model more than three decades ago. Australia and New Zealand subsequently adapted it, while the United States incorporated the approach into its National Roadway Safety Strategy.
These countries did not rely on a single programme. They redesigned roads, lowered speeds where people and vehicles mixed, tightened vehicle standards and assigned responsibility to the agencies that controlled risk. The results took years and differed across jurisdictions, but several early adopters cut road fatality rates substantially.
India cannot copy their road networks or enforcement systems. It can adopt the governing principle: death and serious injury are unacceptable outcomes of ordinary human error.
The UN target is to halve road deaths and injuries by 2030. India is moving in the opposite direction. Claims that the Safe System Approach could save a million Indian lives by 2030 are difficult to sustain within the remaining period. Nor can the economic cost of crashes be treated as an automatic addition to GDP if fatalities fall. The World Health Organisation estimates that road crashes cost many countries about 3% of GDP, through medical bills, lost output and care burdens. That is a measure of loss, not a guaranteed growth dividend. WHO road-traffic injury factsheet
A credible Indian target should begin with deaths and serious injuries on named corridors, backed by annual data, departmental responsibility and funded corrective work. Vision Zero supplies the destination. The Safe System Approach supplies the method.
Madhu Sudan Sharma is Senior Programme Officer at CUTS International, a leading policy research and advocacy group.