THE SUMPs HOAX SIDEWALKS AND EU ROAD SAFETY CONTACT

The government is preparing the National Strategic Plan for Road Safety for the period 2021-2030 and invites anyone who wants to a wide and open consultation. According to government announcements (page 46) "the plan to save lives on Greek roads" is based on the following principles:

• Let us all become better drivers
• Driving more modern vehicles
• On much safer roads
• With fair rules that apply to all and apply without exception.

Roughly the same guidelines were applied in the previous plan 2010-2020 which failed, because any reduction in deaths caused was solely due to the reduction in traffic and speeds due to the financial crisis, which is something the government plan (page 2) had to admit in part. A statistical analysis proves that in the decade 2010-2020 there is an almost absolute correlation of direct deaths from road traffic with fuel consumption that is almost absolutely correlated with the kilometers traveled.

Of course, all of the above are desirable for many reasons, but if examined carefully we can see that it is doubtful whether they are feasible by 2030 and whether they can achieve the desired goal, i.e. to save lives on Greek roads.

First of all, in order to acquire more modern vehicles, there must be an income available, which after 12 years of impoverishment is not easy to find. Then the new car often develops higher speeds or even it is bought for this purpose, as is also shown in a spectacular way by some tragic "accidents" (see eg here and here). The same applies to the "safest" roads, in case there is no strict law enforcing in order to not increase speeding.

The rules on the road should indeed be fair, but they can not be fair, when, bacause of lack of sidewalks, pedestrians can not move safely and the more vulnerable of them (disabled, elderly, parents in wheelchairs, etc.) can not walk at all. Nor can rules be fair when there is practically impunity even in the most provocative driving behaviors that cause death, such as is e.g. the case of hit-and-run. In fact, the police have lost control, speed limits (already high compared to other countries) are systematically violated, most drivers use their mobile phones smoothly and systematically or drive under the influence of alcohol or other substances and drugs and the few sidewalks, pedestrianized streets and squares have been turned into parking lots with the tolerance or complicity of the police. This situation is unlikely to be reversed in 10 years just by wishful thinking, especially now that the police are in charge of additional tasks, such as adhering to health rules, and SUMPs have proven to be a hoax.

Trying to turn everybody into a good driver is even more impossible, in the same way that it is impossible for evrybody to become good musicians or good mathematicians. In order for road behaviour education in schools to be effective, a generation must pass and it cannot change the situation in 10 years. And this is still doubtful, because young drivers are "corrupted" by the prevailing lawlessness and tend to adapt (like the police) to the current situation.

Statistical evidence shows that street deaths (even pan-European) have dropped to a level from which they are no longer significantly reduced. This means that we have reached the hard core of the causal factors of traffic deaths and, in order to achieve "zero vision" (ie no death on the road is acceptable), we must radically change the way the use of the car is treated. Proper driving should be treated as a demanding job reserved for trained professionals, fit for it, that can be controlled more effectively than millions of drivers today. Today, the entire population is destined for driving, and as a result people who are not suitable for this activity or in times and situations that they should not be driving are pushed to drive.

So a policy that wants to substantially upgrade road safety should be based on the following two principles:

1. to aim for the least possible car use (and even less use of motorcycles which are orders of magnitude more dangerous than cars). Today the car is the first choice and its use is not preferred only where this is not possible or creates many problems. This should be reversed and the car should only be used when other means can not be used. The first choice for transport should be some inherently safe means, such as walking and cycling or for longer distances public transport and vehicles driven by a professional.
2. where there is still use of cars to seek to reduce speeds, because speeding is proven to be the main cause of road deaths. In addition, the reduction of speeds, because it reduces the usability of the car, facilitates the achievement of the previous goal, ie the reduction of the car use. However, the reduced speeds does not lead to increase of travel times. On the contrary, such a policy will reduce in fact travel times for three reasons:
   1. reducing car use will reduce traffic congestion and public transport will be able to move faster
   2. the car creates urban sprawl and reducing its use will make cities more compact, thus reducing the average distance traveled
   3. Trains, the use of which will increase if the proposed policy is implemented, can develop much higher speeds than the car with much greater safety.

Such a transport policy will not only prevent direct and indirect (from pollution or lack of physical activity) victims of road traffic, but will help to improve household finances, the balance of payments, the country's independence from fuel prices, tackling the environmental crisis and the health of the population and the quality of life in cities.

Measures that will implement this policy may be the reduction of speed limits, the replacement of movements by private cars or motorcycles with movements by public transit (increase of capacity and frequency of buses instead of using city spaces for ??parking) the expansion of pedestrian areas and the construction of new railway lines instead of new highways. The state should also carry out information campaigns similar (and for the exact same reasons) to those carried out e.g. to stop smoking, to prevent citizens from driving and to advise them to use public transport or (for shorter distances) biking or walking. Of course, in order for this advice to be convincing, these media must be allowed to become faster, cheaper and more enjoyable than cars and motorcycles.

Unfortunately, the currently implemented policy is exactly the opposite of the one described above.