International and intercultural differences in arguments used against road safety policy measures

Policy measures in the field of road safety are not easily implemented for several reasons. Interventions can be undertaken a multitude policy areas, but it is often uncertain how effective are. Moreover, policymakers may reluctant to implement because expected high costs and/or perceived low public support. To understand arguments used against safety, survey was conducted ten countries (China, United States, Kingdom, Belgium, Austria, Sweden, Greece, France, Nigeria, and Argentina). Respondents were presented with possible asked whether they would support or oppose them, what their opinion based on, consequence measure on them individually. This paper describes main findings research then zooms three counterarguments: restriction mobility, discrimination, unjustifiability state interventions, as well considered—compulsory use ISA systems, mandatory cycle helmets, screening older motorists. With this research, previous results level have been confirmed, new insights gained. If people feel safe when using particular transport mode, less conscious need additional stricter affecting mode. The human liberties, fear resistance interventions fuel opposition measures. from different vary consider fair unfair, which linked national culture social organization. Even if unfair certain perspective (e.g., discrimination), some respondents supported measure. Our also illustrates that even who recognize might think justified at least one perspective, instance, an excessive freedom. • Women more supportive than men. People mode Perceived freedom, intervention “Difficult implement” seen most relevant counterargument, followed by “Will reduce injuries.” unfair.