Naumann Rebecca B, Sandt Laura, Kumfer Wesley, LaJeunesse Seth, Heiny Stephen, Lich Kristen Hassmiller
Department of Epidemiology and Injury Prevention Research Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Highway Safety Research Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2020;7(4):343-351. doi: 10.1007/s40471-020-00248-z.
Road traffic injuries are one of the leading causes of death in the U.S. and globally. We introduce the Safe Systems approach as a promising paradigm for road safety practice and describe how systems thinking tools can help bridge the gap between the current status quo and a Safe Systems approach.
Systems thinking tools can help us align with a Safe Systems approach by identifying latent risks in the transportation system, examining factors that coalesce to produce high travel speeds and kinetic energy transfer, and supporting safety prioritization through goal alignment.
The Safe Systems approach represents a significant change in the way we have historically designed transportation systems; it puts safety at the forefront and calls for designing a system that accounts for human fallibility. Operationalizing holistic Safe Systems concepts may be difficult, but systems thinking tools can help. Systems thinking tools provide a common language for individuals from diverse disciplines and sectors to express their unique understanding of the interconnected factors shaping road safety problems and support discussions about potential solutions that align with a Safe Systems approach.
道路交通事故是美国乃至全球主要的死亡原因之一。我们引入安全系统方法作为道路安全实践中一种有前景的范例，并描述系统思维工具如何有助于弥合当前现状与安全系统方法之间的差距。
系统思维工具可通过识别运输系统中的潜在风险、审视导致高行驶速度和动能传递的合并因素以及通过目标对齐支持安全优先级设定，来帮助我们与安全系统方法保持一致。
安全系统方法代表了我们在历史上设计运输系统方式的重大转变；它将安全置于首位，并要求设计一个考虑到人类易犯错性的系统。实施整体的安全系统概念可能具有挑战性，但系统思维工具会有所帮助。系统思维工具为来自不同学科和部门的人员提供了一种通用语言，以表达他们对塑造道路安全问题的相互关联因素的独特理解，并支持有关与安全系统方法相一致的潜在解决方案的讨论。
