Road safety

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! Now we shall debate the Committee on Transport's report 6, Road Safety. I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the committee's proposal and the rejection of the motions.

What is road safety? Is it to install automatic speed cameras along our roads, or is it to perform mock tests on the population? The answer is no. Road safety is so much more.

Madam Speaker! Road safety is something we create together as individual citizens and authorities. It is based on respect and trust for each other's roles.

For me, who has devoted nearly all of my adult life to road safety, this issue is important. In my previous work, I was at numerous accident sites and met people who had just experienced the worst moment of their lives. The presence of panic, shock, pain, and terror was palpable. For some, life ended right then and there.

I have conducted approximately 300 technical investigations of vehicles to find the cause of the accident. Was it the driver, the vehicle, or the road that was the cause of the accident? During a period when the accidents followed one another in rapid succession, it felt like being a traveling salesman in the last two seconds of people's lives. It is in just those last seconds that one finds the answer to the causes of the accident.

Madam Speaker! One of the worst work weeks I have experienced occurred about 20 years ago. In one week, seven people died in traffic, just in Skaraborg. In all of these accidents, I would investigate the cause. Every fatality has a large circle of people around them – parents, children, siblings and other relatives and friends. Every death in traffic affects many people, not least those who have to act at the scene of the accident and in the investigation that follows. Road safety is important, and it is something that concerns and affects us all.

Traffic safety cameras are far from the solution. Nor is neither pet tests on the population a solution. A presence of traffic police is required. They detect impaired drivers, illegal maneuvers, and a multitude of other traffic offenses – and, not least, they find other serious criminal activity in our society, serious crimes that an ATK camera completely overlooks.

Madam Speaker! When it comes to breathalyzer tests, Transportstyrelsen has received extensive criticism for its way of acting when they revoke driving licenses for people who have not committed drunk driving. Even doctors have received justified criticism for having taken samples from patients without informing the individual of this, which is a clear requirement in the legislation. The result has been that a large number of people have had their driving licenses revoked on very loose grounds.

The storm surrounding the PET tests caused the Transport Agency to immediately change its routines, which is a testament to the fact that something is not right. The Transport Agency completely stepped out of line when they began using the PET test as a basis for revoking driver's licenses.

Let me be clear on the issue of impaired drivers: They have no place on the road, period.

That Transportstyrelsen's desk checks would reduce the number of drunk drivers on the roads is nothing more than an academic pipe dream. We sat in the committee the other day and listened to MHF, who, via the National Board of Forensic Medicine, has been able to establish that of those who die on the roads, 40 percent are under the influence of something, alcohol or drugs. It is an extremely serious situation.

Drunk drivers on our roads usually lack a driver's license, as it has already been revoked. Combating drunk driving requires a police presence on the roads. Visible police are an effective way to increase road safety. A bonus is that they simultaneously throw sand in the gears of the criminal networks.

Madam Speaker! Let me also raise the issue of the maintenance of our winter roads. Our professional drivers ensure daily that we have food on the table and clothes on our bodies. The professional drivers also manage transport for industry, healthcare, and agriculture and forestry. The professional drivers simply ensure that our entire society functions in large and small ways. Right now, they are performing their work duties with their lives at stake.

I have 50 years of experience with the Swedish road network and can only conclude that the maintenance has been on a downward slope. Now, together with the government, we have ensured that money is provided so that the maintenance will improve. It is a major change compared to before. But when it comes to the maintenance of winter roads, it is not money that is the problem. It is a catastrophically poor procurement system and an over-reliance on digital meteorologists in the ditch that has created that situation. Here, we Sverigedemokrater are clear: Do it over and do it right!

Madam Speaker! In our endeavor to increase road safety, we cannot accept that authorities act in a way that damages trust. It has the exact opposite effect, and we do not reach the citizens. Trust is something that must be nurtured. And, as said, road safety is built on trust.

(Applause)

In this speech, Patrik Jönsson (SD) agreed

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Thomas Morell, who I know has had a great commitment to road safety issues for a long time. I still have three questions for the member.

Why is the member not prepared to broaden the zero vision? We see in the statistics that the number of deaths is decreasing, but the number of seriously injured is increasing significantly. The number of dead decreases in single digits, but the number of seriously injured in traffic increases in hundreds. It is only in one area where we see that the development is going in the wrong direction. I think the member is also aware that approximately 7,000 people die prematurely due to particle emissions and so on, so that is the question I want to ask the member.

My second question concerns the pethtests that the member raised in their speech. The member said that Transportstyrelsen immediately changed its routines. The Center Party has demanded that an external review should nevertheless be carried out to see in what way the people who were subjected to the incorrect handling of revoked driver's licenses could actually receive redress or some form of compensation linked to perhaps losing their job or not getting the job they had applied for. It did affect people to a very high degree.

My third question concerns alcohol bombs. The member mentioned that we had MHF visiting the committee. MHF pointed out a number of obstacles. As I understand it, that regulation came in 2022, and a decision was made just before Christmas 2022 by the then newly appointed Tidö government. At that time, they did not have support from the Sverigedemokraterna in just the traffic issues, but they worked in a different way. But in what way has the member acted so that those issues will also be resolved?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! I will begin with the final question, the one about breathalyzers. That is where we have been stuck. Money has been allocated to invest in breathalyzers in the ports. We think it is important. The Swedish Customs Service has raised the alarm that they find an average of two intoxicated drivers per week during their random spot checks. The question then is how it looks in total. Therefore, we want to prioritize the breathalyzers, and that is also something we put forward in the reasoning with the department. We would like to get that question settled as quickly as possible.

When it comes to the pee tests, there were a few of us, including a party colleague of Ulrika's, who met with representatives of those who have been subjected to these tests. It can be stated that Transportstyrelsen's way of handling this is in conflict with current legislation. They have really stepped in it. They have taken samples without informing the patient that they are taking these samples, which violates the Patient Act and so on. Then, they have used these pee tests to revoke driver's licenses.

This is a direct miscarriage of justice. I can say that I have been very clear in my conversations with both the Minister and the State Secretary that we must ensure we get better governance at the Transport Agency, because this is not sufficient. The National Audit Office also says so. The Transport Agency does not have a grip on its operations, and it is felt everywhere. Pethtester is just one example of things that are not working at that agency.

When it comes to broadening the zero vision, I can say that there is much to be done there to eliminate the serious injuries. But I will have to address that in my next contribution.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Morell, for the answers to the questions that were included!

The Government states that funds have been allocated for alcohol bombs. But in what way has this been followed up so that they could be installed? I would like to hear not only that it is being discussed with the department but also what it has led to in reality.

The member of Parliament says that regarding the PET tests, they have been carried out in violation of current legislation. My question was why the member of Parliament does not consider that an external review of the Transport Agency should be conducted so that one can also see if those who have been affected by this need a follow-up and potentially redress or compensation in some way. Regarding broadening the zero vision, it is also about particle emissions. I look forward with anticipation to the answers to these questions as well.

I would like to have a clarification linked to the other questions, because I perceive that the member only pointed out that this stands in conflict with current legislation. Then he said nothing more than that there should be better governance of the authority. But if one were to take what these people have experienced fully seriously, one should also appoint an external review of the authority.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! A quick answer regarding the alcohol bombs is that it was actually the police who put a stop to investing in such. It was considered that the bomb was an act of violence that the police performed against the individuals who were there. It was a very strange argument, but that was how the reasoning was presented. I think it is very strange, and we have pointed that out in discussions regarding this.

When it comes to the PET tests, it must of course be investigated why things went wrong. An authority has committed serious errors that contravene the legislation. It must of course be investigated and measures taken. An extremely important part of this is simply to replace the management of Transportstyrelsen so that it is clearly signaled that this is not acceptable and that a new order must now be established.

The question of broadening the zero vision is likely the last one I have time to answer. Severely injured are usually people who receive [treatment] but for the rest of their lives. This is often due to not having used a seat belt, and the consequence of that is these injuries. If one uses the belt correctly and drives with common sense, which some perhaps do not do, the consequences of injuries in the event of an accident become very small. It is often said that most of us survive a collision speed of 70 kilometers per hour if one is wearing a belt. Speeds above that at the actual moment of collision usually result in people dying.

We have much to do when it comes to achieving a different behavior in traffic so that the existing regulations are respected. The cars have created a situation where the death tolls are decreasing, but there are still many who are injured.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! This is the final report regarding road safety for this parliamentary term. I note that it is also the first occasion where the Sweden Democrats do not have a committee motion with specific requests within the area of road safety.

The number of deaths in traffic accidents is decreasing, but not to the extent that would be needed to reach the interim goal for 2030. Against that background, I would like to hear what concrete and clear proposals the Sweden Democrats have so that we can reach this goal.

Thomas Morell mentioned MHF, who visited the committee last week, and the importance of us really working hard to reduce both alcohol and drug-related driving. If one thinks that MHF, NTF and other organizations do important work when it comes to road safety, I would like to hear the member elaborate on why you are cutting the Trafikverket contribution, which is used for civil society organizations, by more than half. You are stripping away 8 million from Trafikverket's budget. I would very much like to hear an explanation for this.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! Yes, how are we to reach the goals? Now I sound like an old gramophone record that has gotten stuck, but we need to get more police officers out on the roads.

I talk a lot about the behavior out on the roads with former colleagues in the police and with drivers who sit and drive heavy vehicles. They tell me that it is constantly insane overtaking, high speeds, and one thing after another. This increases the risk of both deaths and injuries in traffic.

It is no art to drive fast. We can all do that. The problem is that someone who enters an environment at high speed where it otherwise proceeds legally can be surprised, and then misfortune is just around the corner.

There has been an over-reliance on cameras to solve this situation, but they do not do so. We must have uniformed personnel out there actively working with speed, sobriety, seat belt use, and behavior in traffic – such as not overtaking at a meeting.

I receive daily testimonies from drivers who are in 60-tonne convoys and who have experienced passenger car drivers overtaking and coming straight towards them. Each one understands what will happen if there is a collision there.

We have a lot to do here, but it is still the case that in order to reach the goals, we must have more checks on the roads and more active police officers out working.

I have worked in voluntary organizations for over 20 years to educate special drivers of heavy vehicles. If I had been the one to decide, it would have been more money. In budget negotiations, however, one has to give and take, and then one also has to accept that it turns out this way. But I also see that one must increase the efforts when it comes to, for example, surveillance on the roads in order to achieve this.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not know if I have overestimated the Sweden Democrats, but I still experience that the Sweden Democrats have a very strong position. You are the prerequisite for the fact that we have a bourgeois government today. In light of the decision to now cut more than half of the grant that goes to civil society organizations that, on a very concrete level, work closely with people – children and young people – on road safety issues, this is obviously not important for the Sweden Democrats or for the bourgeois government.

Thomas Morell is talking about the fact that we need more controls on the roads. We had this debate and this exchange of remarks when we debated road safety last year. I then asked a question to Thomas Morell which he unfortunately could not answer. Therefore, I am asking it again now. The member then said that the only way to get rid of those drivers who absolutely should not be on the roads is to have uniformed personnel on the asphalt. He also said that there are no shortcuts.

Now that the member, together with the others in Tidögänget, has governed for almost four years, I would like to hear how many police officers have been out on the asphalt when the Sverigedemokraterna have been in charge. I would very much like to know that.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! The number of police officers on the roads has increased, and it is important for general crime fighting that we get uniformed personnel out on the roads. What I would like to do is to have more of these train as traffic police. That has not been possible, because we have had a situation in this country with enormous crime. In that case, the Police Authority has instead focused on tackling those problems.

I myself reacted to the news that came this week that January was the first month in eight years that we did not have a fatal shooting. It is frightening that we have a news reporting where people think this is news. I think it should have been like that every month.

This has caused the Police Authority to focus on tackling serious criminal activity in society. I have pointed out to our Minister of Justice that he must also ensure that more uniformed personnel are deployed to conduct roadside checks. The reason is that all logistics and all movement of weapons and narcotics occurs on the road.

Many within Trafikverket live in the belief that we need more cameras, and that is what they preach. But more cameras will never result in us reaching the figures who supply the criminal networks with drugs and weapons. You only reach them by deploying uniformed personnel on the roads who actively work to search vehicles. That is how you reach them. We will not solve this until the day we raise the guard in road traffic.

It will also lead to us having fewer dead and injured in traffic, because most are actually observers and ease off the gas when they see a police car. So that is how we humans mostly function.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party naturally stands behind all its reservations. I shall make a departure from the agreement to move for approval of only one reservation and move for approval of both reservation 1, which is common to all four parties in the opposition, and reservation 9, which is the Centre Party's own.

Road safety – ensuring that the environment in which so many people all around Sweden find themselves daily becomes as safe as possible – is a great collective responsibility not only for the Committee on Transport but also for very many other actors. But let us do what we can do from the Committee on Transport's side to increase safety!

In the report, only motions from the general motion period are addressed, and in the committee's position it states that all motions are rejected in view of planned or already taken measures and ongoing preparatory work. It therefore sounds as if the Tidö parties still have ambitions in this area.

We must, however, say it as it is: We have a zero vision in this country which means that we are to reach goals ahead, not least towards 2030. In the report, one is honest that there are currently not sufficient resources in the national plan to rebuild the roads to such an extent that the milestone for road safety can be reached.

In the statistics contained in the report, we also see that the number of deaths in traffic, thank God, is decreasing from year to year, even if it is only by a few people – under ten. The number of seriously injured in traffic, however, is increasing by hundreds; according to the latest figures for 2023 and 2024, there were approximately 400 more people who were seriously injured in traffic. Thus, not even the zero vision, as it looks today, is being worked on in such a way that it leads to the goals being met.

We have also proposed that the zero vision should be broadened so that consideration is taken for all those who are killed by traffic and not only those who are killed in traffic. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute says that approximately 7,000 people per year die prematurely due to poor air quality. A large number of people also suffer additional problems with cardiovascular diseases and lung diseases due to traffic.

It is therefore with surprise that I see that one so doggedly holds on to the previous zero vision. It started off quite well, for all things – according to the vision from 1997, not only the number of deaths but also the number of seriously injured in traffic should decrease. But it is going in the completely wrong direction. I therefore think that the rhetoric that the zero vision should not be changed because it has served us so well is incorrect, because it is only half of the vision that has functioned well – or functioned, shall I say. Therefore, it surprises me when one looks so one-sidedly at it as the Tidö parties do.

Very good work is being carried out, and in a previous exchange of remarks, what more we can do together was raised. We know that the authorities and the municipalities – the public sector – have a responsibility, but we also know that civil society has a major role in road safety work. I can see a number of people here in the chamber who I believe had the Safe Cycle sticker placed on the rear fender after having done a test in school. Then they got to feel that they had a traffic-safe bicycle.

NTF has quite a lot of project money but halves the budget for road safety work, even though Andreas Carlson says here in the speaker's chairs – probably in the front ones, which are used during question periods and interpellation debates – that the organizations are an important part of the work. Now we also heard from the Sverigedemokraterna member that resources to the civil sector would not have been cut if it had been up to them. Then one wonders whether it is the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, or Liberalerna who proposed that the grant to that sector should be reduced. We may get the opportunity to hear that during the course of the debate.

Madam Speaker! The zero vision and the work with it is an important part. We have a road safety work ongoing – we know that – and here the authorities are forward-looking in different ways. In 2023, the first crash dummy that took into account the female body's physics was developed. We know that, among other things, there are twice as many whiplash injuries among women injured in traffic compared to men injured in traffic. But the crash dummy is not used to any significant extent, even though our authorities are involved in international contexts and drive these issues.

I am, therefore, a bit surprised that the Tidö parties do not raise these issues more clearly, but in the report only refer to the fact that most of it is under preparation, that measures have already been taken, or that measures are planned in some way. It is quite true that work is ongoing, but when is the result of the work being requested? When will we see something that makes a real difference out in traffic? I regret that it takes so long.

The Member of Parliament from the Sverigedemokraterna also said in a previous exchange of remarks that it is obvious that the incorrect use of pethtesters should be investigated. Therefore, I am a bit surprised that we need to write reservations. There should have been clearer statements about this in the committee's position, but unfortunately, I cannot find them. I hope that this can also be investigated during the course of the debate.

Madam Speaker! Road safety is a large and important area, and as I have mentioned, the Center Party has highlighted measures against alcohol and drugs. There, I have not been on the breathalyzer tests. We also raise the issue of wildlife fences. Wildlife accidents cost 3–4 billion kronor per year, and making the measures that are required is an important part. Here, it is also said that they are working and expanding at a certain pace, but that is simply not enough.

Another part concerns vision, and it has in itself two different parts in the report. One concerns vision checks for the elderly, where it is pointed out that the intervention is not socio-economically profitable. MHF was asked last week how a human life is valued in traffic and responded with the figure 40.5 million kronor. We should not count lives in money, but I still begin to wonder when someone says that it is not socio-economically profitable to make interventions in this area.

Centerpartiet also raises the issue of driving license eligibility. I think, however, that the most important thing – or perhaps not the most important of all, but an important factor – is to see the discrepancy between the transport committee's position that much is underway and what one hears when listening to the minister Andreas Carlson, who highlights the importance of the organizations. That riddle remains unanswered. Who is it that thinks the organizations are not doing a particularly good job and who chooses to reduce their resources in the budget?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! I felt that I had to get up and respond a little bit.

In 40 percent of the deaths, the drivers have been under the influence in one way or another, which MHF reported when they were here in the committee. Of course, it is possible through voluntary organizations to inform people about the importance of not using drugs or alcohol when driving, but a voluntary organization can never do anything about the problem when it is out on the road. We must have police resources that reach those drivers who do not stay sober when they drive – if the drivers in 40 percent of the deaths are in one way or another under the influence of alcohol, we must focus there.

We received no report on this, but if 40 percent of the deceased were affected, then a fairly large number of the injured were also affected while they were behind the wheel. We must do something to reach those who do not behave in traffic. Here we come back to what I spoke about earlier: We must have more uniformed personnel on the road.

I have, as I have said myself, been active within voluntary organizations for many years and have trained professional drivers to drive when conditions are such that other traffic cannot proceed. We have worked intensively to increase knowledge among our students. When money is withdrawn for such activities, it naturally has consequences. I would have liked to see more money spent on this, because it is beneficial in the general traffic safety work. To reach those who drive under the influence, however, there is only one way, and that is uniformed personnel.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Morell for the question, or rather for the answer to the question, even though the Member requested a reply.

I agree with a lot of what the member raised. It is clear that more controls and more uniformed police were needed. However, these decisions do not fall within the scope of the Committee on Transport, so I must leave them to my colleagues in other committees.

I also agree that voluntary organizations cannot act on the road. However, we know – and it is established through research – that preventive work has an important role to play when it comes to road safety. Therefore, it is regrettable that the voluntary organizations cannot work in the powerful way they have done until now. I believe that one could actually get much more out of the preventive work. One can intervene early and reach children and young people.

For example, the organizations have been out in the schools with a small bicycle helmet and an egg. If you drop the egg on the floor, it breaks quite quickly. Everyone knows that; I believe everyone has experienced that. If you put the same egg in a styrofoam helmet and drop it on the ground, it remains intact.

There are different preventive parts where children and young people are given the opportunity to see how they can protect their own heads, which are just as fragile in a traffic situation. It is important that the rug is not pulled out from under these organizations. They must be able to continue to develop such work.

This is nothing that one does in just a few years; I believe the member agrees with that. There is no quick fix, but one needs to do a number of different things. We cannot just place uniformed people on the asphalt, but it is also about a large-scale preventive effort.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! Now a question will come from me, so we have solved that part as well.

It is a bit fascinating to hear the reasoning currently coming from the opposition side that not enough is being done, even though very much is being done to address the problem of people being killed and injured in traffic. Why was it not done during the 2018–2022 mandate period? I believe I had 140 debates here in the chamber about traffic safety in one way or another, but nothing happened. Now, however, a number of steps forward have been taken to address this.

What Ulrika Heie said about the egg is quite illuminating. We have another concern with most. One only has to look out over the hall here and ask the question: How many have winter clothes on when they drive? Most of them do now that it is winter. They have to unbutton them to pull the belt tight against the body. It is important to be able to inform people about the importance of putting the belt on correctly. If one has a winter jacket between the belt and the body, it is completely sufficient for the heart to be torn loose in connection with a collision. How many know that?

In the training sessions that I myself have been involved in conducting, we have many times nagged about the importance of placing the belt correctly against the body and pulling it so that it tightens over the hips. Then the safety systems in the cars can do the rest of the work. One must, however, do the first step oneself to get help from the car. It is very important.

There is much to be done to address this. I still believe that we must have uniformed personnel to reach those who seriously violate the traffic regulations and to protect us others.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Thomas Morell for the question, even though I did not quite catch it.

The Prime Minister said that a fantastic amount is happening now and that he doesn't quite understand why we complain or why we in the opposition highlight different things. I think it is highly unscientific to stand here in the rostrum and say that a fantastic amount has happened in four years while nothing happened during the four years before that. It is simply not in accordance with the truth.

If we look at the statistics and at the figures that exist, we see that a lot has been done. It has not been done quite as much all the time, but different efforts have been made. There is a broad political consensus surrounding the zero vision. I would say that it does not depend on the government, but it is our authorities, municipalities and so on that drive it.

It has slowly but surely gone in the right direction regarding those parts. Unfortunately, the development is going in the wrong direction regarding the number of seriously injured in traffic, regardless of government. It is unserious to say that one did so fantastically much and that the other did nothing.

I thank you very much for the information on how to fasten the belt. We cannot emphasize enough the importance of driving in a traffic-safe manner. Also, here it is about support for the voluntary organizations. We know that our pensioner organizations, together with MHF and a number of study associations, are currently working on producing traffic safety material. The older and more fragile body is hit even harder by the violence that traffic can create.

Therefore, it is even more surprising that one does not look at these parts. We can get so much more for so many more people for just a few million, but the Tidö government chooses not to do what can be done.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ann-Sofie Lifvenhage (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of the proposal in the report.

Every day we head out into traffic. We go out on foot, by bicycle or in public transport, or we get ourselves behind the wheel. For most of us, it is a self-evident part of everyday life – something we do almost without thinking about it. Traffic is, however, not just a transport system but also one of the places where our choices have the greatest consequences.

Road safety is fundamentally something very simple but at the same time very large. It is about the right to arrive alive. It is about the right for children to go to school without being afraid and the right for parents to come home after work. It is about the right not to lose one's life because of an accident that could have been avoided.

Road safety work unites us political parties in the will to create the safest possible conditions so that one can travel safely in traffic regardless of how one gets around. Sweden is one of the world's leading countries in road safety, and we stand with broad support behind the zero vision, with the goal that no one shall die or be seriously injured in traffic. The statistics are moving in the right direction as more and more measures are implemented nationally to reach the goal. But we are not there.

Every year, people are injured and killed in traffic. Behind every figure is a person, a family, friends, a school class, colleagues, an entire village. Lives can change in an instant, and therefore road safety must never be reduced to statistics or rules on a piece of paper. It is fundamentally about responsibility, our responsibility for one another.

Madam Speaker! During the mandate period, we have made decisions here in the chamber that contribute to more people being able to get home safely. This includes, among other things, a historic investment in road maintenance, with proven methods to work through the maintenance debt – something that should have been addressed long ago.

Furthermore, we have finally received a law on seatbelts in Attractors. It should always have been obvious.

Furthermore, more roads have been given a median strip, which prevents vehicles from entering the wrong direction of travel. There have also been more climbing lanes throughout the country, which facilitates a smooth traffic flow and completely eliminates the risk of dangerous overtaking by, for example, heavy traffic. Roundabouts have also been added at locations that have been accident-prone, and more cycle paths have been separated from the road.

Furthermore, the camera system has been expanded on specifically selected road sections, and we see a development with geofencing and more wildlife fences to keep wildlife and traffic apart.

It has also become forbidden to use the mobile phone while driving.

Our vehicles are becoming increasingly safer to travel in thanks to, among other things, fatigue warnings and warnings if one drives too close to the center line.

Research is finally moving forward regarding different belt models so that a male and a female body can be protected in the correct way. The three-point belt is otherwise the single largest contributing cause to reduced mortality for those who travel by car.

I hope that the next major initiative, also for unprotected road users, will be self-driving vehicles. Research has indeed gained momentum, and Nacka has had a pilot project for self-driving vehicles for some time now. I truly look forward to the development here contributing to a drastic reduction in accident rates.

Madam Speaker! Much we can do from a legislative perspective, but a good deal then lands in the municipalities' work with both the existing road network and how new construction is planned so as not to create hazards and hostile environments unnecessarily.

And finally, it still boils down a lot to personal responsibility and how I behave when I am in traffic, how I operate my vehicle, and what risks I expose myself and my fellow road users to.

It is, for example, about the fact that alcohol and drugs do not belong in traffic, whether on land or at sea. Alcohol bombs, an effective and easy-to-use more general alcohol lock or other reading methods that ensure one cannot set off if judgment is clouded by alcohol or drugs, so that one does not realize what an idiotic idea it would be to operate a vehicle, are measures that are welcome and make a difference. Here, the traffic police also have an important job to do to keep the roads safe.

We live in a time when the mobile phone has become a constant companion. A message or a notification makes one cast a quick glance at the screen. But three seconds without attention at 90 kilometers per hour means that the car has rolled 75 meters completely out of control. Imagine, an entire football pitch, blindly! Using the phone in traffic is not a small mistake; it is a deliberate risk-taking. "It can't matter when no one is watching me," many Swedes probably think.

Here, compliance with the rules is crucial, not how many column meters we write in documents. It is therefore important to talk to children about traffic etiquette early on and to practice a lot in a calm and steady manner. Road safety involves, among other things, asking the questions: How do I behave in traffic? Do I show consideration? Am I a role model? Do I follow the rules even when no one is watching me? Do I think about how my behavior affects others?

With children in the car, we often do the obvious. We fasten them in, slow down and drive carefully. But all too often we forget or disregard the same caution when it concerns ourselves or other adults. Driving safely is not a sign of weakness or insecurity. On the contrary, it is a sign of maturity, respect and responsibility. It is a way to show that we value human lives higher than convenience and a few minutes here or there.

Wear a reflective vest, otherwise you won't be seen! And surely a bicycle helmet is much cooler than a smashed skull when the accident happens.

Madam Speaker! Speaking of when misfortune strikes, all of our vast country's blue-light personnel rush to a scene and a situation that the vast majority do their utmost to avoid. But we are now receiving report after report of a catastrophic situation where the number of firefighters is becoming fewer and fewer – despite the fact that we should heed Carl-Oskar Bohlin, Minister for Civil Defence, regarding the importance of taking responsibility for the build-up of Sweden's civil preparedness.

In an interpellation debate a few weeks ago, we could hear how to recruit more firefighters and make the profession more attractive. It is important, because unfortunately, those who say it are only becoming fewer – not because they no longer dream of becoming superheroes, but because SKR and Kommunal still have not understood that Swedish firefighters, like their colleagues in other EU countries, want the opportunity to work flexible day shifts with good recovery opportunities year-round. Yes, I mean year-round, not just when the employer thinks it fits to put together the summer holidays.

I do not know whether it is the over-implementations and incorrect interpretations that are worst or the lack of will to solve what one has caused. The Moderates' MEP Tomas Tobé, along with several others, has for a long time demonstrated that this is not the fault of the EU regulatory framework and that no one will thank Sweden for doing something others do not do just because we believe we are doing the right thing and that there are no other ways; there are.

I really get a pain in my stomach when Marcus Aronsson, with several engaged firefighters from across the country, sends article after article and email after email showing the situation in Sweden. For example, the lunchroom discussion at the Nyköping fire station is about the desire to do something else, all because of a formal error. This applies to firefighters from across the country. Peter, Stephanie, Emelie, Robert, Karin, Christer, Mattias, Robin and Magnus, yes, the list can be painfully long of those who do not want any more and who are changing careers. They end up with something Sweden has a shortage of and which they are incredibly skilled at, just because there are elected and union representatives who cannot handle a loss of prestige.

Sometimes things do not turn out as one has hoped or thought. Sometimes they even go wrong. But do you know what? It is not dangerous. Then one apologizes and corrects it so that it becomes right. I am ashamed that these decision-makers have not solved the problem with a common effort but instead exhibit total tone-deafness and arrogance. It really is not acceptable.

On September 13th is the election, and the safety-creators within Blåljussverige all have their own voice. Together with their relatives and everyone else who is affected, they are many. I hope that they use their voice to show that Sweden should be a liberal, safety-creating country that believes in people and competence where not everyone has to be in the same trade or be the same and that one stands up for freedom. Then perhaps the currently controlled SKR and Kommunal can wake up, take each other by the hand and finally listen to those whose interests they are elected to represent. On September 13th, here we go! It is not words but actions that count.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Lifvenhage, for the contribution, which I think clearly shows that there is much we agree on here. That is also what road safety work is about: We must do it together in politics but also at all levels in society as a whole, where we as individuals naturally have a great responsibility when we move in the traffic environment.

I would like to ask Member Lifvenhage something. The Sweden Democrats are now clearly stating that no cuts would have been made to the grants for civil society organizations working with road safety if they had been involved in the decision-making. In that case, I must ask the other parties. Is it the Moderates who have set the pace in this regard and not prioritized this work? As I see it, the work is completely central. Working closely with people and educating children, young people, and the elderly is a vital part of creating road safety, as we heard earlier here. Do the Moderates not think so?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ann-Sofie Lifvenhage (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the question!

I think it is good that this is, in broad terms, an area where we stand united as Swedes. It is about us saving as many lives as possible and about us jointly prioritizing measures that have as great an effect as possible.

When it comes to the budget item and how many millions we have spent on different possible grant financings, we have, from the government's side, for the first time made an enormous investment. We have increased the budget space for different types of measures by a total of 28 percent. There is also a large increase for traffic safety measures.

Regarding what the member specifically wondered about – what voluntary organizations can apply for – I think these organizations do important work. They also have the opportunity to receive money from different types of funding. Another way to get money is, for example, the license plate fund that exists. Everyone who applies for their own license plate pays 6,250 kronor, of which the largest part goes to just road safety work.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! This sends very strange signals, I think. If I have understood correctly, Trafikverket previously had 15 million kronor at its disposal to distribute to civil society organizations. Now 8 million is being cut. NTF and MHF, whom we met last week, express great concern that this will result in dramatic changes in their work with traffic safety. I think this is very serious and unfortunate, but it is obviously not a prioritized issue for the government.

I would like to take the opportunity to bring up something else concerning civil society organizations, which I will also address in my contribution, namely their ability to gain access to the accident database Strada. We had a proposition that the Riksdag decided on in 2021, I believe it was. Today, it is difficult or impossible, I would perhaps say, for civil society organizations to access accident statistics, with reference to GDPR. At the same time, the committee, when the decision was made, was clear that it should not restrict the possibility for all actors in the field who work with road safety. Here, as far as I know, nothing has happened during the parliamentary term. Why can civil society organizations not get access to the accident statistics that are relevant to them?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ann-Sofie Lifvenhage (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the questions! I do not see at all that it is not a prioritization. One can, of course, choose to put a certain pot of money in one account and another pot of money in another account, but it is still possible that the money reaches the same recipient. How one chooses to place money in different budget pots is not about any reduction at all. What we are doing is an investment where there will be more money that can be applied for, but in different ways.

This is not the only way to use knowledge-enhancing measures for our citizens. It is about opportunities for more police information to our schools, to provide knowledge early to our children and students about how to behave and move in our societies in a traffic-safe way. There are several different ways to use that type of money. They do not always have to come from one and the same pot.

When it comes to Strada, I completely agree with the member. I think it should be simple and smooth to receive information that is GDPR-secured. That we have not progressed further, I regret. I really hope they get their act together.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Lifvenhage, for the speech!

I appreciate the long enumeration of different parts that are important for us all to feel a greater sense of security in traffic. At the same time, one mixes some large and small things. Much of what concerns reconstruction and so on is such things that have been planned for a long time, such as more two-plus-one roads, roundabouts and so on.

All credit should absolutely be given for the belt strikes for Attractors and that mobiles may not be used. These are very important parts that I think should be highlighted. There, I think the member highlighted risk behaviors in a completely meritorious way.

I want to ask three questions.

The first one concerns the first reservation in the report, regarding a broadened zero vision. I have pointed out that unfortunately, it is not going in the right direction. The number of deaths in traffic is decreasing slowly, but the number of seriously injured is increasing quite significantly. Perhaps one needs to focus on the zero vision then, but we still have a proposal. Several thousand people also die from traffic and the particulate emissions and so on that it causes. Why is there no interest in also bringing up those questions and taking the chance to work cross-sectorally? That was my first question.

My second question concerns the PET tests and the Transport Agency and whether Ann-Sofie Lifvenhage and the Moderaterna are driving the issue of an external review of the Transport Agency to get to the bottom of the matter so that one does not end up where one was again. The member has a good angle linked to the individual's possibilities and rights. It is about people having been treated unfairly.

My third question is: Why is the support in all areas to organizations such as road safety organizations and so on decreasing? I have partially received answers to this, but I would still like to hear something further about it.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ann-Sofie Lifvenhage (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Heie, for the questions!

Regarding the first question, it is very important that we have a zero vision. It has been adopted by broad agreement, and we have been able to follow statistics going back a long way. It has an intrinsic value that we can follow up on the same types of issues and have a focus on just that.

For me, this is no obstacle to also implementing evaluations in other areas or other parameters regarding what we see concerning different types of particles in the inhaled and exhaled air. But I want us to maintain exactly the same zero vision that we adopted from the very beginning so that we can easily follow statistics at all times and have the same clear parameters. That is not to say that I see any obstacle to also bringing in and looking at how our inhaled and exhaled air is affected.

The second question concerned the peth tests. I think this is a total failure; it is appalling. That a change is being made regarding the management of Transportstyrelsen is for me a clear indication of the responsibility one has when working with a certain type of issues. One also has a responsibility to follow up and see what the results of the work one does become.

I look forward to us getting a different, clearer and more follow-up-oriented government. Hopefully, we will also see a result of an evaluation of the work that has been carried out regarding the peth tests. It is a total failure.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Lifvenhage, for the answers to the questions!

Does the Prime Minister mean that an evaluation will be carried out so that one gets to the bottom of the PET tests? It is one thing to replace a leadership or to in some way mark against an authority, but here it is about individual people who have truly been caught in the crossfire, both in terms of how one is perceived as a human being and in terms of what the consequences become at the work level, when it comes to the possibility of making a living and so on. Even though, as is said, it is only about 40 people who have fared worst, this is still something that has been used for quite a few people.

I would very much like to hear a bit more about this. Is one prepared to in some way replace people or see to it that they are given redress – that perhaps is the most important thing – when it comes to these issues?

I never managed to properly ask my third and final question. Even Carina Ödebrink, who asked about this earlier, was surprised that the support for the road safety organizations is more than halved in this area.

I know that the minister does not belong to the same party as Lifvenhage, but one still belongs to the three government parties together. The minister pointed out that civil society organizations also have an important task. How is it then that the rug is pulled out from under them to such a great extent?

Instead, one would need to have a trust-based basic funding that gives them the opportunity to work on seeking projects, to seek funds from the Skyltfonden or whatever it may be. This uncertainty, where the organizations do not know how it will be from year to year, creates great difficulties when it comes to the voluntary work. I perceived that the member would appreciate this.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ann-Sofie Lifvenhage (M)

Madam Speaker! I am of the opinion that this is to trivialize the whole thing. Regardless of whether it had been 40 or 2 people, it is by far too many. In Sweden, with the rule of law situation we are collectively fighting for, one should not at all be able to be subjected to what these people have been subjected to.

When it comes to in what way one gets to the bottom of this, I can say that for me it is about a symbolic value, when we have a leadership that has not previously and more clearly put a stop to this so that this could have happened at all. In connection with the committee, we have heard people telling how they themselves have been affected. I am touched, and I am completely convinced that the rest of the assembly also is. This is an unworthy way of working in Sweden.

Road safety is multifaceted. It consists of incredibly many different important pieces, and everything will ultimately be a question of prioritization. We must look at which effects provide the greatest benefit and make the greatest difference.

Just as the member previously pointed out, this is also about how we can reach the zero vision. How are we going to ensure that we reduce the number of people who are seriously injured or killed in traffic at an increased pace? Then we must also be able to see that we do different things with the money. If one can apply from several different types of funds, for example the Skyltfonden, which the member previously mentioned in the exchange of remarks, these are still funds that can be used in the work. Every krona counts!

The government is making major investments with 354 billion for road maintenance and 1,171 billion, which is an increase of 27 percent from previous years, in investments in our entire network. I hope this will be of great use and make a difference.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! Let me first say that we Social Democrats stand behind all our reservations in the report, but for the sake of time, I move for approval only of reservation 12, which concerns Attractors.

My contribution stems essentially from what I and we Social Democrats have previously focused on when it comes to road safety. It is not about a lack of imagination, Madam Speaker, but rather about repeating what we consider to be most essential.

The zero vision is one of the most successful ideas in Swedish transport policy. It has changed our way of thinking, from accidents being seen as a consequence of human error to the transport system being designed so that people survive even when they make mistakes.

Sweden is today one of the world's safest countries in terms of traffic. We should be proud of that. It is good, but it is not enough. We see that there are still far too many who are killed and injured due to things that we could address.

In 2025, 208 people lost their lives in road traffic. It is a decrease, but unfortunately, it is not enough for us to be in line with the goals of the zero vision. As we heard earlier, the number of injured and seriously injured in traffic has increased in an alarming way. The interim goal for 2030 is at most 133 deaths in traffic, and that means a halving compared to the measurement period 2017–2019.

We Social Democrats therefore consider that the pace of the work on road safety must increase. It is not enough to refer to ongoing work; additional concrete measures and clearer political leadership are required for the development to proceed at the pace that is required.

Madam Speaker! We also have new challenges. The number of accidents with attractors has increased sharply in recent years. It is good that the requirements have now been tightened regarding seat belts, winter tires, and the number of passengers.

It is relatively few who perish, but every death is naturally a tragedy. There are even more who are seriously injured. It is a clear sign that we have not kept up with the developments regarding what needs to be done for safety to keep pace as the number of vehicles increases.

ATVs are important for our young people, both as a means of transport and as an interest for young people to gather around. This is a unique culture and a unique Swedish phenomenon, which has now been secured in the new driving license directive. That is good.

Madam Speaker! The zero vision has been successful, but it needs to be developed. Traffic does not only cause death and injury at the accident itself; it also causes death and illness through air pollution, particles, and noise. Children, the elderly, and people with heart and lung diseases are hit hardest. Today, far more people die prematurely due to poor air than people who die in traffic accidents. If the zero vision is about saving lives, we cannot turn a blind eye to those who die from traffic, because it is therefore not just about those who die in traffic.

Road safety is a shared responsibility. It is a responsibility for us as individuals, for civil society, for municipalities, for regions, for the state, for us legislators and for authorities at the state level. It is furthermore a responsibility for the business sector when it comes to designing safer vehicles.

Traffic safety is not created solely through rules and controls. It is created in how we build, maintain and design our traffic environments, develop safer vehicles and change norms and behaviors. That is why the system responsibility is so crucial.

Up to half of the traffic accidents that occur are not about behavior but about deficiencies in the road and street environment, for example poorly paved pedestrian and cycle paths or roadways.

It is about the fact that resources must be available for operation and maintenance, but also about ensuring that we get the most possible out of the resources we allocate. It can often be tough for municipalities with scarce resources to prioritize between, on one hand, healthcare, school, and elderly care, and on the other hand, snow removal and traffic-safe street environments.

Madam Speaker! Swedish road safety work has been successful because we have done it together: authorities, research, the business sector and civil society.

Non-profit road safety organizations reach children in schools, young people in associations, and local actors across the country in a way that the authorities cannot replace. However, their ability to work based on knowledge has been weakened. They need to regain access to anonymized data from the accident database Strada. It is difficult to save lives without facts on where the risks are.

As I said in a previous exchange: When the Riksdag dealt with the bill on Transportstyrelsen's accident database, we in the committee were clear that this was a good development and that it would not affect the companies and interest organizations for whom access to accident statistics is important. That is not what has happened. The Government must ensure that these organizations can access relevant data in order to be able to contribute to increased road safety.

It is a failing grade for the government that nothing has happened during the mandate period. It does not have to be about new legislation. It needs to be about how one ensures the directives regarding this.

The government is now reducing Trafikverket's allocation for grants to non-profit organizations by 8 million kronor starting from 2026. In practice, this means a halving compared to before. We have today a government that speaks of a historic investment in infrastructure while simultaneously removing more than half of the resources – which in this context may be considered small change, Madam Speaker – to our important civil society organizations that work with road safety. This is being done in a situation where we see that we will not reach the road safety goals with the current work.

It is difficult to understand how the work on road safety is to be strengthened when the support to the organizations that work closest to people is reduced so significantly. If one wants civil society to be a partner, one must provide them with both data and resources.

One of the factors that is most decisive for road safety is sobriety. Driving under the influence of drugs is a growing problem, and the police must have real opportunities to detect it in everyday life. The pilot project that is currently underway with routine eye examinations to detect driving under the influence of drugs is good. It needs to be taken further and used more systematically and frequently, in the same obvious way as drug tests when it comes to alcohol. It is about detecting impairment in time, before the accident occurs.

Madam Speaker! The zero vision requires pace. It requires systemic responsibility. It requires that we use all forces in society. Therefore, we need a broadened zero vision. Therefore, civil society needs to get back both access to Strada and reasonable resources. Therefore, the police's opportunities to detect drunk driving must be strengthened. That is how we save lives – both in traffic and from traffic.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! We have now heard several, among others the Centre Party and the Social Democrats, raise the issue of voluntary organizations. I welcome the great interest that exists for what the voluntary organizations do. We have had both MHF and NTF visiting the transport committee where they have told us about their important work. We have, for example, heard about NTF's work in schools. We look very much at the accidents, but they work preventatively – so that there are no accidents.

I completely share the view that the voluntary organizations' work in increasing knowledge is incredibly important to reduce the number of accidents. I also do not believe it was right to cut these funds. I was alerted a bit late that the budget had been halved.

In a previous exchange, the Social Democrat said that this is a very central part of the entire country's work for road safety. I did a quick check, and I could not see that any of the opposition parties had restored these 8 million kronor. I could not see that in their own budget proposal they had said: These 8 million to the voluntary organizations – or possibly even more money since the Social Democrats say that this is such a central part – we are restoring.

It becomes my question: Why has it not been done?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Gellerman for her honesty regarding not really being attentive to the ball in question regarding these important contributions to civil society.

If we had been in the majority, we would have made different priorities. I am completely convinced of that. When one sits in opposition, one does not have the same conditions as the governing parties have.

What I said in the previous exchange was about scrutinizing the government and the support party, in this case, and asking questions. That is my responsibility as a member of the Swedish Parliament. If we had been in government, I am convinced that it would have looked completely different.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! But the Social Democrats did present their own budget. They presented what they wanted to do within the area of Communications, expenditure area 22. There, they never restored these funds. It is not a matter of that in your budget you should audit the government's budget. This is actually the Social Democrats' budget that you have presented, and there you have neither restored the money nor allocated more. The Centre Party has not done so either. I have not seen any of the opposition parties have done so. Therefore, this criticism falls a bit flat, even though I myself would also have liked to have seen this.

When it comes to budget discussions, it is a give and take. As the Moderate member previously pointed out, we do very much for road safety, but these funds are needed so that these organizations can have a basic structure, be able to apply for project funding, and so on. I have worked in these structures myself previously. One cannot voice this criticism, I think, if one has not personally driven the issue. Here, I do not think I have received a sufficiently good answer from the Social Democrat.

I also want to briefly raise the issue of Strada. When we made the change, I was also afraid that different organizations would not get access to enough data. The problem is not that they cannot get access to anonymized data, but the problem is that the data is too non-detailed. We are working on the issue to see what we can change.

Above all, I want to know why you did not include the money in your own budget.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! I believe that Helena Gellerman is well aware that when one sits in opposition, one does not have the prerequisites or the opportunities to go into every budget item. It is instead about looking at the whole and creating an alternative that we believe corresponds with our view. It cannot have escaped Helena Gellerman that is the case.

It is unfortunate that the money has disappeared. It does not only make things difficult for the civil society organizations, but it actually risks making it impossible for them to be players in the important work that we do together. I welcome Helena Gellerman's honesty. We can perhaps look at the issue after the election when we gather in the chamber again and present proposals for the budget.

Then there was the question of Strada. I do not know how much the government is working on the issue, but it is not rocket science to ensure that civil society organizations can get access to accident statistics that are secured in a way that does not reveal facts about individuals. That nothing has happened in that area is a bit meager.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Today we are dealing with a report concerning road safety. I would like to begin by moving to reject all motions and move to approve the committee's proposal in the report.

Sweden is in many respects a fantastic country. We have, with great unanimity in the chamber, agreed on the zero vision, and that has made Sweden in many ways an example when it comes to road safety. It is about preventive measures, regulations, traffic controls, and traffic technology. We are good at what we do.

At the same time, the zero vision is a strong vision, and we will continue to work with the vision of reaching zero regardless of the color of the government. Given that it is people in the cars, that the country is large with a lot of infrastructure, that man himself is imperfect, and that even the technology we develop is imperfect, there will always be potential for improvement.

What we joyfully see right now is that the death toll is decreasing – not as much as one wishes, but they have been around 215–230. Last year, the death toll was down to 208, and that is positive but obviously not good enough. On the other hand, we see, as has been pointed out earlier in the chamber, that the number of more serious injuries is increasing. Over the last two or three years, it has been 300–500 individuals. Every single individual who is affected is a tragedy, and that is why we continue to work on the issues.

What measures are we working on to try to reduce the problems with traffic safety and make traffic safer for us all? It is obviously safer roads and new technology. We can see how modern cars have technology that actually makes it harder to make mistakes. It is still fully possible to make mistakes, but the technology in our vehicles warns us when we are tired and if we do not hold the steering wheel. It is a positive development.

What also works strongly in Sweden, and that is something we should take with us, is that in our driving schools there is constantly a discussion about values. How does one behave in traffic? That discussion should not be underestimated because it is those types of values, thoughts, and reflections that can make a person, when they have driven many miles, decide to stop the car and sleep for ten minutes before continuing. It is about the soft values that reduce the risk of accidents. For professional traffic, it is statutory, but even if it is not statutory for those of us who are not in professional traffic, it is still just as important. We would need to talk more about the values part.

Madam Speaker! Then there are conflicts of interest in traffic, for example between cars and motorcycles. It is clear that there is a conflict of interest; it is cheaper to build wire fences than to build so-called smooth fences, but wire fences are dangerous for those who ride motorcycles. Most of us, the Swedish Transport Administration and I, agree that whenever one expands and renovates when a fence breaks, one should install as many smooth fences as possible. It increases safety for all road users, even those who ride on two wheels.

I had the privilege of attending the motorcycle exhibition in Jönköping. The new technology is the underride protections that can be placed lower on the rails. I must be honest as a politician and say that I do not believe we can manage to install these protections along all stretches in Sweden. Even though it is a cheap technology in itself, Sweden is a large country, but at right-hand turns where capillary forces arise, push out, and at two-plus-one roads that narrow, i.e., at strategic points, it is fully possible to work more with that technology. I do not think any of us have allocated separate funds for underride protections, but I believe we are all in agreement in discussions with Trafikverket that when they develop, renovate, and maintain roads, these protections shall be included.

There is another issue that we will debate in a few weeks, namely pedestrian and cycle paths, i.e., separating the traffic. There has been a longer debate ongoing here. There has been a discussion about whether one can build a pedestrian and cycle path that is separated from the regular road. In that case, the Swedish National Audit Office has landed on the reasoning that there is nothing in the legislation that says how close the pedestrian and cycle path should be to the road. I think that is a smart way to reason, and then we can get a greater separation between the motor traffic and those who walk and cycle.

I am personally not unfamiliar with the fact that perhaps a clarification is also needed. I know that the Swedish National Audit Office has pointed it out, but we shall have that debate when we are going to talk about bicycles. If one talks about traffic safety, it is clearly evident that pedestrians and cyclists are less protected than those who sit in a car. If there can be more separation in those structures, it benefits safety over time.

There is also other things happening. Here, I might stick my neck out. Smart cameras have positive sides. But there is another side of traffic safety, namely that citizens should not feel that they are being monitored. They should feel that they are part of the system and have confidence in the system. That is why at least we Christian Democrats have landed on that we do not want measurement between cameras to occur. This can be discussed from a traffic safety perspective. Measurement between cameras will result in that more people who drive too fast will be caught. But there is also a risk of less trust in the traffic system. More people will feel that we are heading into a surveillance society. It is a question that I believe one should talk about quite openly and honestly with each other. Where is the limit for responsibility and so on?

On the other hand, one can work with other technology, such as dynamic signs. With them, the speed becomes lower if it rains, snows, is cold or is slippery, and the speed becomes higher if it is dry and works well.

I believe that the biggest measure we are taking right now is the 1,171 billion, of which 564 are for maintenance and 607 billion are for development. Being able to build away and restore broken and poor roads over twelve years increases road safety.

We also have a budget where approximately 607 billion is set aside to build new roads and new infrastructure. It is clear that it is part of our road safety work.

Madam Speaker! With those words, I move, as I have said, for approval of the committee's proposal in the report and for the rejection of the motions.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! It feels a bit like the cat and the mouse and the mouse and the rope. But I still want to ask the same question to Magnus Jacobsson that I have asked the members from the other parties in the SD government.

If the Sweden Democrats had gotten what they wanted, the grant to the civil society organizations would not have been cut. Helena Gellerman is honest and says that she was not aware of this. And the Moderates declare that fewer resources do not need to be an expression of a prioritization. I will not put any other's words in Magnus Jacobsson's mouth, but I think that then it is the Christian Democrats who have thought it was good to cut back on this and use that money for something else.

I have also asked several others about the possibility for civil society organizations to gain access to the accident statistics. It does not necessarily mean that the law must be changed. But one must ensure that they can get access, because they can get it within the framework of the legislation we have. I would like to hear Magnus Jacobsson elaborate on that.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Given the beginning of the question, I wondered whether I should go and sit down, since there is no SD government. But I perceive it mostly as a rhetorical device and will go ahead and answer the questions.

Regarding the first question, about the 8 million, I shall be completely honest and say that I was made aware of them at the motorcycle trade fair. I must admit that when I looked at and read the large budget, which we received a while ago, I did not note just these 8 million out of all the billions that we handle.

The honest follow-up question, which I am helping the member with, naturally becomes: What do you do then when you have discovered this? I have started digging into it and am trying to find out what has happened. I will be liable for the answer.

The second follow-up question is: What do you intend to do about it? I intend to raise it with my colleagues. I personally think that civil society is super important. They are doing a great job. But the straight and honest answer regarding just those 8 million in the total budget is that I did not note them before I was at the motorcycle exhibition and received information about them. Then we received a very good overview even in the committee, and that amount was included there. I simply envision continued work there.

I share the Moderaternas view that if an organization receives less money – that happens to all organizations sometimes – one is forced to seek in other sources. I think, for that matter, that one should always do so; I am myself active in civil society, in a free church and so on.

Regarding the second question, about accessing knowledge and sources, it is my firm opinion that we should make it as simple as possible, whether it concerns researchers or civil society, so that research can continue on this. I believe that it benefits road safety in general.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! I truly appreciate Magnus Jacobsson's honesty.

Perhaps we can find a way forward regarding the support for civil society. In my ears, it sounds a bit discordant when one says that the entire investment in infrastructure is a historic investment but at the same time cuts out significant sums. They are admittedly small in context, but they are very valuable for those who could do very good work for them.

I thank Member Magnus Jacobsson for intending to take this further. It may become an issue in future budgets.

The same applies to the accident statistics. The intention and the thought were very clear: It was not to change the possibility of access. Nevertheless, it has become so. I know that during the previous parliamentary term, there were interpellation debates about this with the then minister. He was on the same line: that a legislative change would not be required, but that some clarity was probably needed in this regard. That is what I have missed from the current government.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the last question, we seem to be in agreement. It is a fundamental view that we should be able to access the research, statistics, and such that comes in, regardless of whether it is an association, myself, or a researcher requesting it. I have not delved much further into that question than that, but it is my very fundamental and firm view. I believe that it benefits society as a whole that we have as many open sources as possible, regardless of whether it concerns traffic safety or other research.

When it comes to the money, I still think that Helena from the Liberals highlighted it in a nice way. It actually seems as if none of us have really noted this. When I have tried to ask, I haven't quite been able to land on whether it is completely given that the money lies with the transport committee or from where they have been distributed and so on. I simply haven't found them.

Generally, I believe it is as our friends from civil society point out: If they receive reduced grants, they will obviously work less with that type of education and the things they have worked with. It is connected in some sense.

The only promise I can give from this rostrum is that I intend to continue digging for the 8 million and look into both what happened and whether it is something that we can rectify together.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Jacobsson, for the speech!

Our questions partially overlap. That is, there are a number of areas that are of particular importance. It is, of course, a matter that the accident statistics must truly continue to go down. No one should be blamed for not having a great interest in that. In that regard, I feel that there is a great breadth.

On the other hand, I am not particularly surprised that the civil society organizations are being questioned. One has cut off half a billion from the study associations. There, it is not a halving, as it is in this case. There, it concerns billions. Now it concerns millions. But if I understand correctly, I believe there is a lot to what the member said: that it is such a small amount within Trafikverket's work, and it does not stand as a separate budget line in our budget report.

Regardless of whether it does or not, it is a cut of over 50 percent. It is a lot of money, and it is like pulling the rug out from under them. I am a bit surprised that the Christian Democrats as a party do not stand up more for civil society organizations.

I also want to have time to ask another question, and it concerns the Transport Agency's way of handling the pet tests. One first took a defensive stance, but then it was understood that something had been done wrong. It was even said: We have not used evidence-based methods. We can find no support in the research for the parts that we have used. Therefore, we are now withdrawing certain parts but highlighting others.

I have been able to sense that other members are prepared to demand an external review of this, so that it does not become something that recurs. Above all, individual persons need to be able to obtain redress. Is Member Jacobsson prepared to demand such a review?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I will answer the last question first. I am perhaps one of those in the committee who has been a bit cautious about speaking out. I was also among those who requested that we should hear from the National Board of Health and Welfare. Most recently, we had MHF with us, and I also posed the question to them.

The reason I have been a bit cautious is that the question is not super simple. I do not believe that any of us wish to have people in traffic who have drugs or alcohol in their bodies. Since I, for various reasons, have had people around me who have had problems with alcohol, I have chosen to be a bit cautious; I know that these tests have helped individual people.

The honorable member knows that I requested documents in connection with when we had Transportstyrelsen with us in the committee. They may not release documents just however they please, but they may provide information on such things as are public. Judgments are public. All of us in the committee were given access to judgments in the most discussed cases. I read through those judgments. It was not Transportstyrelsen that had made the decision, but it was the court. I think that we to some extent have politicized this issue in an unhealthy way. I do not want to see people in traffic who are under the influence of alcohol and thereby risk other people's lives. That is my fundamental view.

The answer to the question is that I absolutely have no problems with further scrutiny where this is looked at from a security perspective. When it concerns individual people, the decisions must always be legally sound and based on evidence. I have no problems at all with that type of reasoning. But I think the debate has been politicized, and I am not entirely sure that what has been put forward has always been completely correct. I think that is regrettable.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Heie (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the answer to the question. One might think that there are quite a few political debates that are polarized and where the points put forward do not fully correspond with evidence-based facts and so on.

In this case, I feel that people have felt exposed in a way that should not occur from authorities. Therefore, this should be investigated and a proper account should be given of what has happened and why. It may be that these people are entitled to some form of redress – in words or monetarily. We are keen that an external review is conducted. I find it difficult to feel that an internal review is sufficient in an authority that has not lived up to what we can expect from it. I thank you very much for the answer.

I move on to the question of the zero vision, which I know the member is very engaged in. We see that we are not reaching the goal in the zero vision. We value it, think it is good and consider that we have previously lived up to it, but we will not reach the milestone. The plan also does not include funds for measures to reach it.

They are now shifting a bit more of the two-plus-one roads and regional roads to the county plans and saying that it will probably become more efficient if the resources are used in a more unified way. In the discussions about this within the Minister's party, have you concluded that by making this shift we will achieve a significantly greater effect from the whole? What effect is it that you expect from the regions themselves taking greater responsibility through the county plans to build away the uncertainties that are seen?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! We de facto have an authority that conducts external audits. I would not be at all sad or critical if the Riksrevisionen conducted a review of the pethtesterna. It would rather have been sound. I am, however, doubtful that resources should be spent on someone else doing it, when we have an entire authority that works precisely with auditing our authorities. Again: I think generally speaking that it is very good in principle when one audits authority decisions and audits whether the authorities' actions have been good or bad. I have no objections there.

When it comes to the national plan and the distribution between the national and the regional, I am perhaps just as clear or unclear as the minister would have been if he had stood here: We will return to this when the plans themselves arrive. But with my experience as both a municipal and regional politician, I believe it would be more efficient if the national plan contained a larger sum for the regional. I simply believe that it is efficient when regions and municipalities cooperate, also in the sense that they often see where the local problems are and can handle them.

When it comes to road safety, I would like to fall back on my own speech. We are now allocating more money than ever. We often receive criticism in this chamber for primarily allocating the money to roads. But it also means that Trafikverket now has the opportunity to review, for example, what type of railings are used and if more under-gliding protections can be had. We are providing completely different conditions for working with road safety. It is clear that I hope that in the long run this will lead to increased safety even for motorcycle riders.

Then I have one last small comment regarding the comparison with the student unions. As far as I know, MHF has never been accused of serious crime. I want to be clear about that. But that was the case with a group of student unions. There was, therefore, a reason why the regulations were reviewed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malin Östh (V)

Madam Speaker! We in Vänsterpartiet have at this parliamentary meeting submitted a motion on road safety containing 23 demands. But only 7 of these 23 demands are addressed in the road safety report that we are now debating. The rest will be handled moving forward, sorted under other reports. That it looks like this is due to the structure that the Riksdag has for motion handling. Demands are sorted. Then they end up under headings for different issues. That is how motion handling looks in the Riksdag – no problem with that. But the question of road safety itself cannot be handled in that way in different silos; it must be handled collectively. We need in Sweden an expanded and broadened view on road safety, so that more issues are brought under the road safety umbrella.

It is clear that one of the issues that must be addressed there is the working conditions in professional transport. Road safety is not just about winter tires, median barriers, and seat belts, but also, to the highest degree, about the work environment. We have a dark year behind us for bus transport, with several serious accidents and deaths. We all remember the tragic accident outside Tekniska högskolan in November, but also the accident that occurred in Liljeholmen during the days between Christmas and New Year, where 16 people were injured. Unfortunately, it is only two of several serious accidents that have occurred in the past year.

Each individual accident and its causes are investigated separately, as they should be. But we know that the risk of accidents increases when the work environment fails – when the schedule is pressured, when there are no margins, when there is not enough time for recovery, and when the driver is tired, stressed, and pressured. We also know that in several industries today, schedules are set that are so pressured that it is impossible to manage what needs to be done while simultaneously following the traffic rules. There are industries where drivers are forced to drive 13 hours a day, seven days a week, and still have difficulty making it work. We know that it is not traffic-safe.

Demanding and ensuring that we have good working conditions in the transport sector is very important. It strengthens traffic safety. That is also why we in Vänsterpartiet demand that the platform companies take employer responsibility. We say no to lone working in the commuter train traffic but also no to procurement carousels which, with their constant demands for squeezed costs, press all the air out of the system and lead to schedules deteriorating, breaks being shortened, and toilet breaks disappearing.

Let the many serious incidents of recent times be a wake-up call. Clarify the employer's responsibility, strengthen systematic work environment work, and ensure that traffic safety requirements are set in every procurement of transport.

Madam Speaker! The preliminary figures for 2025 show that the number of people who died in traffic accidents has decreased compared to the previous year. We have also heard that earlier during the debate. It was 208 people in 2025 compared to 213 people in 2024. It is good that we see that decrease, even though we have not yet seen the trend break needed to meet the interim goal for 2030. More needs to be done.

Behind the figures, another problem is also hidden. It is that of the 208 people who died in traffic last year, more than one third, 42 percent, were unprotected road users, despite the fact that they account for a significantly smaller share in traffic work. This is how it has looked for a long time. But that unprotected road users are overrepresented in the accident statistics year after year is not a law of nature. It can be changed by increasing the safety for unprotected road users.

We therefore have from Vänsterpartiet a reservation that the government shall take measures that mean that unprotected road users are given a greater focus in the work with the zero vision. It would not only have shed light on a vulnerable group in traffic. It could also have contributed to breaking the curve and increasing the possibility of actually reaching the milestone goal by 2030.

But the Tidö parties demand a rejection of this. I actually think it is remarkable. This should not be an issue where there is political disagreement. The figures speak for themselves: We have failed to protect unprotected road users. We can and must do better.

Madam Speaker! The zero vision establishes that it is unacceptable for traffic to claim human lives. That is the very basic idea of the zero vision. That starting point then lays the foundation for all traffic safety work in Sweden.

But people die and are injured not only in traffic, but also by traffic. I want to emphasize this. We have previously heard that emissions and air pollution from traffic are estimated to lead to thousands of premature deaths every year. In order to achieve the zero vision's goal that no one should die or be seriously injured in traffic, it is high time that those who die or are injured by traffic are also included in the zero vision.

All opposition parties stand behind an expanded zero vision. So does Trafikverket, which in 2019 adopted a goal that no one should be killed or injured in or by traffic. Now the Tidö parties also need to step up to the plate.

Madam Speaker! Speed limits are an important tool for increased road safety, and in that regard, speed cameras are also an important part. The speed cameras that exist are deployed along our roads where they do the most good. They are on roads where high speeds have been measured and where the risk of accidents is high. These speed cameras have, according to the Swedish Transport Administration and the police, not only increased speed compliance but have also reduced serious traffic accidents by 20–30 percent. This corresponds to 15–20 lives saved every year.

Both the police and Trafikverket want to introduce the possibility of measuring average speed between speed cameras and see it as an opportunity to save further lives. Measuring the average speed would mean reduced speed and increased speed compliance on significantly longer road sections than today. The cameras can be placed at a distance of 2 mil and measure the average speed in between.

Reduced speed saves lives. We know that. It is a fact. From Vänsterpartiet, we therefore see stretch-ATK, i.e., measuring average speed between cameras, as a measure that was needed to increase safety and reduce mortality and the number of accidents in traffic.

With that, I move for the approval of reservation number 3.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the report on road safety.

We all take for granted that when we travel, we will arrive unharmed. Perhaps one thinks about it when the road conditions are a bit worse, where there is snow and ice or perhaps a risk of aquaplaning. We often speak in terms of deaths and seriously injured. But even a minor accident, which does not even reach the first level of severity for how serious an accident is, creates large ripples and creates trauma also for those who were not involved.

I personally experienced such an accident in February 2008. It is almost 20 years ago, but it still remains on the retina. We were on our way home from a mountain holiday and were driving on a two-lane road in Norway with heavy traffic in both directions. There was a rock face on one side and a vertical hundred-meter drop on the other. There we got stuck. After weaving back and forth between the lanes, it ended in a head-on collision with a Mercedes van. The family was injured in different ways, and my son and I spent the night in the hospital. The driver in the other car sprained his foot. He could then continue on up to his mountain holiday. The car was turned into scrap.

This accident did not even reach the lowest level, as a minor injury, and is therefore not included in the statistics. But it created trauma for the five of us in the family and sick leave for two months. Relatives were affected, and neighbors cancelled their mountain holiday. We were saved by the built-in safety of the Swedish car.

I often return to that accident when I read about, for example, young people who have been injured or died in an accident with, for example, an A-tractor. An accident affects so many more people than those who are directly involved. It is family, friends, relatives, kin, school and workplace.

Many in Sweden have in some way been affected by a traffic accident. Last year, according to the statistics, over 50,000 people were injured. In that case, an accident like the one I was involved in, where the car was totaled, is not included in the statistics. That type of accident is not even counted. You can imagine how many people know someone who has been involved in such an accident.

That is why road safety is so enormously important. The vehicles must be safe, the roads must have a good standard, the railway crossings must function, and places where one changes modes of transport must be safe.

Sweden has for a long time conducted successful road safety work and has among the lowest numbers of deaths per inhabitant in traffic in the entire world. Sweden created the zero vision. It is a vision that other countries have followed. We research and develop new systems in vehicles and on the road so that no one should die or be seriously injured in traffic.

It yields results. It is truly positive that in 2025 we had the lowest number of fatal accidents in road traffic historically, 208 in total, if one excludes 2020, when the number of journeys on the road was dramatically lower than during 2025. It was lower than 2024, despite the fact that road traffic increased by 3 percent during 2025.

All this is statistics. But it is important to see that a single accident affects so many, not just the injured person. Therefore, we need to systematically continue to increase road safety in cars and on the road. We simultaneously need significantly more inspections of vehicles and of whether the drivers follow the rules for speed, use of alcohol and other drugs, as well as driving and rest times. The rules that are not inspected are not followed to the same extent as those that are inspected.

The Liberals therefore want to see more traffic police with a focus on the important work of traffic controls on the road. Here, the work with alcohol bombs in our ports is an important piece of the puzzle. We also have many vehicles, not least foreign ones, on our Swedish roads that would not pass a technical inspection and which can constitute a traffic hazard. Road safety on our roads would be significantly improved with more controls on the road.

Unfortunately, the number of deaths among young road users and among unprotected road users is not decreasing. Here we must do more. We need to invest more in research on unprotected road users and on new vehicle categories, such as electric scooters, moped cars and A-tractors, as they are increasing in number on our roads. We need to understand the risks and the causes of the accidents.

Moped cars and A-tractors increase the freedom of movement for young people; that is very positive. We in the Liberals are positive towards new technology and towards increasing mobility, but it must not lead to increased personal injuries. In 2023, requirements for A-tractors were introduced for seat belts, one person per seat, and winter tires. In the new driving license directive, training and a driving test are required for A-tractor licenses. We liberals welcome this – all to create knowledge and avoid accidents. We liberals also want the new rules to be followed up during the years after the introduction in 2028 to see if the accident statistics for these vehicles change.

We Liberals also want that requirements for sustainable speeds be set in public procurement of transport services, meaning that the supplier's vehicles shall maintain the speed. This would have a dampening effect on the average speed on our roads and additionally radically reduce emissions.

The speed is also linked to the road's design and condition. Due to too little money for maintenance, Trafikverket has lowered the speed on roads all over the country. So we cannot have that. We must have a road standard that allows people to get to work safely and in a reasonable amount of time. Road safety should not depend on where you live. The Liberals are now, together with their coalition partners, investing more money than ever on the maintenance of roads, not least in the countryside where most of the speed reductions have occurred.

The Liberals, as said, believe in the potential of technology when it comes to increased road safety. More and more cars are connected and can share their road safety data to, for example, identify ice patches or other cars in obscured visibility. I was myself involved in such a research project in 2009. Now, Trafikverket has finally begun to seriously use these data to increase road safety on the road.

An important part of the work on road safety is the availability of solid driving education. Here, we need to target the illegal driving schools and increase the proportion who pass the theory and driving tests. Otherwise, we risk having an increased number of accidents on the road in five to ten years because we actually get worse drivers out there.

I also want to mention the important work that organizations such as NTF and MHF do to increase knowledge about rules and increase road safety across the country. They need to have stable conditions for their important work.

Madam Speaker! We can all be affected by illnesses that can impact our driving ability and lead to a revoked driver's license. Therefore, it is important that there is a uniform way to test whether a disease or impaired vision actually affects the driving ability itself. The Liberals therefore want a review of whether traffic medical assessments are carried out in the same way across the entire country. It is also important that the assessments are carried out in a legally secure manner, with reliable methods. It is a subject that we have heard about previously in the debate and which during the year has been relevant regarding breathalyzer tests in the case of long-term high alcohol use.

Madam Speaker! I also want to bring up the announcement that the Liberals initiated five years ago. It concerns those people who are tested for vision and who turn out to have visual defects. Their driver's licenses are revoked immediately. They do not get a fair chance to show if their visual defect actually affects their ability to operate the car. It is unreasonable. It affects approximately 1,000 people every year. Research shows that about half of them could have kept their driver's licenses. Therefore, it is positive that the Transport Agency's review resulted in new rules with milder requirements regarding visual field examination being introduced in February 2025.

The Transport Agency has also, on the government's assignment, investigated the conditions for driving tests in traffic – it was precisely that which was pointed out in the committee initiative – to test whether one can continue to drive a car even if one has suffered a loss of field of vision, if it does not affect the driving ability.

The Government Offices are currently reviewing the referral responses, and now the Liberals are pushing for a rapid implementation.

Madam Speaker! The most exciting development right now within road safety is what is happening regarding self-driving vehicles, as 90 percent of all accidents are caused by humans. We Liberals are technology optimists, and now self-driving cars finally seem to be able to become a reality. The Transport Agency is in the process of developing a regulatory framework that is to be ready by 2027. The global technical rules are in place. Type-approved cars at the EU level can arrive as early as 2027, i.e., next year. The pioneer Waymo conducts 225,000 paid trips per week in the USA with self-driving vehicles.

The technology is ready. Now it is the regulatory framework, responsibility, and social integration that determine the pace. Here, we politicians must also be on our toes so that Sweden does not get left behind. We have very good vehicle manufacturers, and we must ensure that they have a domestic market and can test the new technology.

Self-driving vehicles are no longer a vision for the future. In the coming years, they will be gradually introduced. I find it really exciting, as that was what I worked with just before I started here in the Riksdag in 2018. This is the technology that can make it possible for us to truly reach the zero vision.

In conclusion: Road safety is an area that Sweden has every reason to be proud of, while at the same time much work remains to reach the goal of a maximum of 133 deaths in traffic in 2030, on the way towards the zero vision.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision and against all motions.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is a serious subject that we are talking about today. It is about life and death. I have actually myself lost a close friend, one of my childhood friends, in a traffic accident. Everyone who has lost a close friend or relative knows what that sorrow is. Every person who is killed in or by traffic is one too many.

We have come some way in Sweden regarding road safety, but we are far from finished. More needs to be done. An increased focus on unprotected road users is required. I can unfortunately state that the development here has gone in the wrong direction. The number of seriously injured in traffic has increased, and the largest increase is precisely in the group of unprotected road users, especially among those who walk and cycle.

Every year, more than 3,000 pedestrians or cyclists are injured or killed in collisions. Over one-third of those who die in traffic are unprotected road users, despite accounting for a significantly smaller share of traffic volume. It is therefore statistically more dangerous to walk or cycle than to drive a car.

Since the zero vision was introduced, there has been a strong focus on car traffic. Two-plus-one roads have been built, meeting separation has been introduced, cable barriers have been installed, and dangerous intersections have been built away and replaced by roundabouts. It is very good.

The focus has been on improving the traffic environment to minimize the consequences of human error, while traffic safety for cyclists is unfortunately often reduced to a behavioral issue where one is urged to use a bicycle helmet, reflective vest, and so on. There is, of course, nothing wrong with that; on the contrary, it is very good. But it becomes a double standard when it comes to what one focuses on. Traffic safety naturally concerns both the traffic environment and behavior, and we need to treat the different modes of transport equally. When a person dies in traffic, it is a family that loses a close relative or someone who loses a close friend. It shows the need for an updated zero vision where cycling is treated as an independent mode of transport, where cycling and walking are given a place more than in a corner and are truly prioritized both in the traffic system and in the budget process.

The zero vision is a very important part of Swedish traffic policy, but it really needs to be broadened and developed. We have focused very much on those who die in traffic. Now we also need to focus on those who die from indirect consequences of traffic via increased mortality from diseases and from particles, noise, and emissions.

Almost one-third of Sweden's total greenhouse gas emissions are caused today by domestic transport, the majority from road traffic. This has further consequences. According to IVL, it is said that nearly 7,000 people die annually as a result of air quality. A large part of this is caused by the traffic as it looks today. Annually, 200–300 people die in traffic accidents. We therefore believe that it is high time to update the zero vision and make a decision in Sweden's Riksdag that the zero vision shall include both those who die in traffic and those who die from traffic.

Madam Speaker! Maintaining speed is one of the best ways to reduce the number of deaths in traffic. Therefore, I welcome Trafikverket's proposal to be able to monitor speed along stretches. If everyone maintained the speed, calculations show that approximately 50 lives per year could be saved. Remember: Every life counts!

We also see that Sweden's municipalities would need to be granted increased powers when it comes to regulatory compliance in traffic. A municipality has the right to decide on the speed limits on municipal streets and roads, but the municipality is then not allowed to ensure that the rules are followed. The only thing available to the municipality is physical speed bumps or to wait for the police, who can often be busy with other – more serious – crime. I mean that it would be an efficient use of resources if the municipalities could do more. Therefore, they need to be granted increased authority to install traffic surveillance cameras and integrate them into the police's systems.

Madam Speaker! One can read significantly more about this in the committee report and in our motion. Finally, I would like to move for approval of reservation 1 regarding a zero vision and reservation 5 from Miljöpartiet.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 12.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)