Nine in ten road users worldwide say they feel safe in their day-to-day travel, while only 45% of the transport professionals who design, build and operate mobility systems agree. The Safety in Motion study, published by Economist Enterprise with support from brake manufacturer Brembo, surveyed road users and transport professionals across ten of the world’s largest vehicle-producing markets — Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, South Korea, the UK and the US — representing roughly 75% of global vehicle production. With 1.2 million people killed on the world’s roads every year, the study argues that misplaced public confidence is an overlooked barrier to improving road safety outcomes.
Highlights
- Nine in ten road users report feeling safe in daily travel, compared with only 45% of transport professionals — a gap the study finds widest in the markets with the poorest safety records.
- In Brazil, China and India, 94% of users feel safe versus 18% of professionals, even though those markets record an average road fatality rate of 16.2 deaths per 100,000 people, about double the study average.
- 30% of transport professionals cite misuse or misunderstanding of driver-assistance systems as the leading cause of mobility safety issues; 65% believe advertising may overstate what those systems can do.
- 88% of users support stronger road safety measures, including lower speed limits and greater enforcement, and say they would pay more for safer transport systems.
Confidence Outpaces Safety in the Riskiest Markets
The gap between user and professional confidence is greatest in Brazil, China and India, where 94% of users report feeling safe — the highest share among the markets surveyed — compared with just 18% of transport professionals. Those three markets combined record an average road fatality rate of 16.2 deaths per 100,000 people, roughly double the study average.
Pratima Singh, Principal of Policy and Insights at Economist Enterprise, who led the research, said, “In Brazil, China and India, public confidence has grown alongside rapid, visible modernisation—new infrastructure, smarter vehicles, better technology. But confidence has outpaced actual safety performance. When people believe systems are safer than they are, they often do not exercise the necessary attention to keep them safe on the road.”
Trust Is Not Felt Equally
Confidence varies by demographic. Low-income users are nearly twice as likely as middle- and high-income users to report low or mixed confidence in their daily travel safety. Generationally, Millennials are the most confident, with 94% reporting high trust, while Gen Z and Baby Boomers are the least trusting, at 12% and 16% reporting low or mixed confidence, respectively.
Human-System Interaction Is the New Safety Frontier
As vehicles grow more automated, only 3% of professionals surveyed identify mechanical failure as a leading cause of safety incidents. Instead, 30% cite misuse or misunderstanding of driver-assistance systems as the greatest cause of mobility safety issues, and 24% point to features that distract drivers from the road. Users themselves rank their own behavior as their biggest concern.
Professionals also flagged how these systems are marketed: 65% believe advertising may overstate system capabilities, 62% say it implies drivers need to pay less attention, and 60% believe it emphasizes benefits while downplaying limitations.
Regulators, Industry Face a Coordination Gap
Despite high public confidence, 88% of users support stronger road safety measures — including lower speed limits and greater enforcement — and say they would pay more for safer transport systems. That skepticism about the status quo arrives as regulators tighten requirements — the EU’s pedestrian-detecting emergency braking mandate took effect this month — even though 68% of transport professionals identify poor coordination between regulators and industry as the biggest barrier to improving safety.
Matteo Tiraboschi, Executive Chairman of Brembo — whose Sensify intelligent braking platform entered series production earlier this year under the company’s stated “Zero Accident Future” mission — said, “Closing the trust gap requires collective action across the mobility ecosystem. Industry must continue to innovate responsibly, policymakers must create effective regulatory frameworks and together they must help people understand both the capabilities and the limitations of new technologies.”
Four Trust Environments, Four Different Risks
The study identifies four distinct trust environments shaped by local culture, institutions and governance rather than technology alone:
| Trust Environment | Markets | User Confidence | Professional Confidence | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trust optimists | Brazil, China, India | 94% | 18% | 76 points |
| Trust guardians | Japan, South Korea | 84% | 70% | 14 points |
| Trust pragmatists | France, Germany, Italy | — | — | 39 points |
| Trust negotiators | UK, US | 92% | — | — |
Trust guardians (Japan, South Korea) show the narrowest gap, built on independent validation and reliability, though the study cautions that institutional trust is fragile when performance quietly erodes. Trust pragmatists (France, Germany, Italy) combine the lowest fatality rates in the study with a 39-point confidence gap, reflecting skepticism toward technologies that feel opaque or overstated. Trust negotiators (the UK and the US) show high user confidence tethered closely to institutions, meaning a regulatory failure or corporate scandal could carry outsized consequences.
Jean Todt, UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Road Safety, said, “Today, people are not safe on the road. To address this silent pandemic, we need responsible innovation, effective regulation and serious investment. Trust on the road should not be a given; it must be earned. Research and discussion on road safety is important, but only action will save lives.”
Subscribe to The BRAKE Report. Get the Handbook free.
