Human fatigue continues to threaten safe transport. There are claims that employers of operators should do more to mitigate the risks, and several regulators are promoting fatigue-risk management in the context of safety management systems (SMS). The current paper reviews fatigue-related risk and exposure factors and control measures for operators of land- and sea-based transport forms. Our review identifies 13 types of measures for the monitoring or control of fatigue risks: optimal staffing; optimal schedule design; optimisation of breaks/naps; monitoring of actual hours worked; optimisation of work content; monitoring and feedback of actual sleep; health screening and treatment; promotion of recovery from work; fitness-for-duty testing; monitoring of fatigue symptoms while operating; control of fatigue while operating; performance monitoring and assistance; and fatigue-proofing. We also identify two systemic measures needed to anchor risk mitigation in SMS: organisational learning and training/other. By structuring monitoring and control measures along Dawson and McCulloch’s [Managing fatigue: It’s about sleep. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 9(5), 365–380] fatigue-risk trajectory, a framework is obtained that acts as a guide for fatigue-risk management by transport employers. To inform transport managers further, evaluations are needed of the effectiveness of individual control measures as well as whole fatigue-risk management interventions.

One way to prioritize public transport over private vehicle mobility, is to implement curbside rather than layby bus stop designs. There is, however, uncertainty about the consequences of implementing curbside rather than layby stops for traffic collision risks. To begin investigating this issue, we describe an exploratory analysis in which national data describing bus stops, road properties, traffic collisions and built-up areas were merged based on geographical location. Analysis of the resulting data set suggests that the relative rates of traffic collisions resulting in personal injury within 60 m of the bus stop, is higher for curbside than for layby stops in built-up areas (0.32 vs. 0.22 collisions per ten million passing vehicles, respectively). Our analyses suggest that the higher risk of nearby collisions for curbside stops is not necessarily due to bus stop design, but rather because they tend to be located closer to junctions and side roads, where collisions are more likely. Our data are not consistent with hypotheses that curbside stops are associated with greater shares of head-on or rear-end collisions than layby stops, nor that layby stops are associated with greater shares of side-on collisions than curbside stops. The limitations of this exploratory analysis, and of the use of national-level data for studying the effects of bus stop design on collision risk, are related to lack of control of bus stop design features other than curbside vs. layby, statistical power, data registration and compromises made when coupling data based on geographical location. Future work should attempt to build on our approach, and supplement database analyses with analysis of in-depth reports of bus stop collisions, observations of road user conflicts near bus stops, and before-after studies following conversion from layby to curbside stops or from curbside to layby stops.

While Norway had the lowest road mortality rate in Europe in 2017, Greece had one of the worst road safety records of all EU-27 countries. The present study investigates road safety culture (RSC) as an explanation for this discrepancy by: (1) Comparing the road safety behaviours among professional and private drivers in Norway and Greece, (2) Examining factors influencing road safety behaviours, focusing especially on national road safety culture, and (3) Examining the influence of road safety behaviours and other factors (e.g., demographic and work-related variables) on accident involvement. This is done by comparing survey answers of private car (N = 796) and professional drivers (heavy goods vehicles and buses) in Norway and Greece (N = 416). Results from qualitative interviews (N = 61) are also presented. We study safety behaviours hypothesized to vary according to nationality (e.g., aggressive violations), and behaviours hypothesized to vary according to the professional versus private driver dimension (e.g., seat belt use). A central objective is to examine whether the former safety behaviours are more similar among private and professional drivers within countries than among professional and private drivers across national samples, indicating common national road safety cultures among private and professional drivers in the respective countries. The results indicate that aggressive violations are more similar among private and professional drivers within the national samples, than across the national samples, while seat belt use seems to vary according to the professional versus private dimension. The results also indicate a relationship between aggressive violations and accident involvement, although other variables were more strongly correlated. Moreover, drivers’ safety behaviours were influenced by the behaviours that these groups ascribed to other drivers in their countries, indicating the existence of different national road safety cultures. The Greek RSC was characterized by more aggression and violations than the Norwegian RSC, which seemed to be characterized by a higher level of compliance and politeness. The different RSCs may perhaps shed light on the different accident records in the two countries.