Safe Roads Make Better Economic Sense Than Dangerous Ones
The Economist
DURING the past two decades astonishing progress has been made in fighting infectious diseases in poor countries. Polio has almost been eradicated; malaria is being tamed (see article); HIV/AIDS is slowly being brought under control. Yet almost unnoticed, another epidemic is raging across the developing world, this one man-made.
Road crashes now kill 1.3m people a year, more than malaria or tuberculosis. On present trends, by 2030 they will take a greater toll than the two together, and greater even than HIV/AIDS (see article). The vast majority of victims die in poor and middle-income countries—1.2m in 2011, compared with 99,000 in rich ones.
For every 100,000 cars in the rich world, fewer than 15 people die each year. In Ethiopia the figure is 250 times higher.
It is tempting to see the carnage as the price of development. Building roads is a highly effective way of boosting growth: the World Bank finds many projects to fund that do better than its minimum acceptable economic rate of return of 12%. In the rich world road deaths and growth went hand-in-hand for decades: the first death-by-car was in 1896 and the peak came in the 1970s.
However, since then, restraints on drivers and investment in safety have slashed road deaths in the rich world by more than half. New York’s roads are now at their safest since records began in 1910. Sweden is still some way from its stated goal of ending road deaths altogether, but in 2013 just one Swedish child under seven died in a crash. Technology such as alcolocks, which prevent drunk-driving, and (eventually) self-driving cars will make roads in the rich world safer still.
Governments in poor countries tend to assume that they, too, must see deaths soar before they are rich enough to think about saving lives. Aid donors and development banks may conclude that a dangerous road is better than no road at all.
But the experience of rich countries has shown that roads can be made safer cheaply and simply. And far from being an unaffordable luxury, safe roads make better economic sense than dangerous ones. Most crash victims are boys and working-age men. Their death or maiming leaves families destitute and deprives countries of their most economically valuable citizens. In medical bills, care, lost output and vehicle damage, the carnage costs desperately poor countries as much as 10% of GDP.
Some of the recent safety measures in rich countries, such as dedicated cycle highways, count-down lights at crossings and strict vehicle standards, are pricey. But the big lifesavers are not. Just a small fraction of the cost of building a road can cut deaths dramatically. Roads used by pedestrians need footpaths: 84% around the world currently have none. They need safe places for those pedestrians to cross. Roads with fast traffic need well-designed junctions and central barriers to stop head-on collisions. Governments need to hammer home on billboards, radio and television that seatbelts and motorcycle helmets save lives—and to ensure that police and courts enforce laws against speeding and driving while drunk.
Such steps can cost peanuts: the cost of averting a death or injury using speed bumps at deadly junctions in sub-Saharan Africa is a piffling $7; fences between cars and pedestrians in Bangladesh, $135. Yet few places tackle road deaths with the same determination as infectious diseases, and charitable donations are a tiny fraction of the $4 billion promised annually to fight HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. In most countries more than half of all deaths happen on under a tenth of roads.
Roads bring hope to poor people, and misery as well. A little money spent on safety can tip the balance sharply, to everyone’s benefit.
