Search Economist Enterprise
Every year, almost 1.2 million people die as a result of road traffic crashes. At the same time, engineering has made getting around safer than ever; the question now is whether human understanding has kept pace. Yet the challenge is no longer just making mobility systems safer. As vehicles take on more functions, is user awareness being eroded, and do users really understand the performance limits of these vehicles? What measures should regulators take to avoid a crisis ensuing from this mismatch in safety reality and perception?
To answer these questions, Economist Enterprise developed Safety in Motion: Driving trust in modern mobility, an evidence-based report, supported by Brembo. It draws on a proprietary survey of 6,157 respondents across ten markets—Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, South Korea, the UK and the US—conducted between April and May 2026, comprising 5,135 members of the general travelling public and 1,022 industry professionals with direct roles in the mobility sector, spanning vehicle manufacturing, technology, infrastructure and transport policy. Respondents were distributed evenly across the ten markets. Findings were supplemented by a structured literature review and an advisory board programme convening leading experts across road safety, data governance, human-machine interaction and transport policy.
Key findings
1
Mobility users feel safe, but the people running the system are still concerned
Nine in ten people report high confidence in their day-to-day travel, with Millennials and high-income groups the most assured. That figure falls to just 45% among the engineers, policymakers and operators behind those systems.
Figure 1: The trust gap
Percentage of respondents who responded “Quite a lot - I generally feel safe” or “Completely - I feel fully safe and reassured” to survey question “In your day-to-day transport, how much do you trust that mobility systems keep you safe?”
2
Human-system interaction is the biggest safety risk
Only 3% of professionals identify mechanical failure as the leading cause of mobility safety issues, while 30% point to human misunderstanding of automated systems. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety rated 11 out of 14 partial automation systems poorly for driver-engagement safeguards, underscoring how a vehicle can pass every technical standard but still fail the moment a driver stops paying attention.
Figure 2: The human-machine complex
Industry professionals’ responses to survey question “Based on your experience, which of the following is most responsible for mobility safety issues?"
3
Safety messaging may be outpacing reality
Across industry professionals including manufacturers, technology companies, ride-hailing operators, and public bodies, 65% express concerns that advertising overstates what systems can do. Users absorbing these messages may become less vigilant, but without mandatory capability disclosure, makers may be less likely to voluntarily pull back the practice of overclaiming.
Figure 3: Mixed signals
Industry professionals’ responses to survey question “To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about marketing related to new vehicles or transport services in your country?”
4
Industry-regulator coordination needs to improve
This is cited by 68% of professionals as the most common point of failure. The economic stakes are substantial: the World Bank's Global Road Safety Facility estimates that road crashes cost between 0.65% of UK GDP and 4.73% of China's, annually. Where coordination is effective, results follow: with its road rating, the International Road Assessment Programme has prevented roughly 700,000 deaths and serious injuries across 74 countries.
5
Trust breaks differently in different markets
User confidence, industry confidence and fatality experience cluster the surveyed markets into four archetypes: optimists (Brazil, China, India), guardians (Japan, South Korea), pragmatists (France, Germany, Italy) and negotiators (the UK, the US). Each archetype responds to different signals and breaks under different pressures.
Figure 4: One size does not fit all
Four archetypes of how trust in mobility safety can be built
TRUST OPTIMISTS
Brazil, China, India
The risk: Overconfidence and complacency.
What users respond to: Optimistic innovation narratives backed by visible safeguards and government support.
What industry should avoid: Overpromising capabilities or scaling before systems are fully reliable.
TRUST GUARDIANS
Japan, South Korea
The risk: Even small failures can quickly undermine trust.
What users respond to: Technical proof, reliability and independently validated safety standards.
What industry should avoid: Hype, emotional/exaggeration or claims without evidence.
TRUST PRAGMATICTS
France, Germany, Italy
The risk: Users become sceptical if automation feels opaque or unnecessary.
What users respond to: Clear explanations, practical benefits and visible real-world proof.
What industry should avoid: Abstract messaging or “black box” technology narratives.
TRUST NEGOTIATORS
UK, US
The risk: Distrust is directed as much at institutions and companies as at the technology itself.
What users respond to: Transparency, accountability and visible governance from companies.
What industry should avoid: Opaque decision-making, aggressive marketing or defensive corporate messaging.
6
The public would support tighter safety rules
Our survey found that 88% of users would endorse slower speed limits, wider use of speed cameras and paying more for safer travel, while simultaneously rating the current system’s accountability, enforcement and reporting as fairly low. The mandate for institutional action exists within a window of opportunity that must be seized soon.
Figure 5: People are ready for safer mobility
Users’ responses to survey question “To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about road and transport safety in your country?”
7
Closing the gap between how safe mobility systems are and how safe people feel about them is not a task for any single actor
The report outlines three key priorities for all stakeholders:
Transparency is the foundation
The most immediate actions across all three groups—performance reporting, consistent terminology, marketing alignment—are all forms of disclosure. The precondition for rebuilding trust is that users, regulators and the public can see what systems actually do, how they actually perform, their limits and what they actually require of the people using them.
Coordination gaps are the biggest structural risk
The problems identified in this report, from fragmented standards and inconsistent regulation to marketing that sometimes outruns evidence, are not failures of individual actors. They are failures of the system those actors operate in. The medium-term priorities all require multiple organisations, jurisdictions or sectors to move together, and that will not happen without deliberate cross-border and cross-sector architecture.
Human behaviour must be treated as a design variable, not a compliance problem
The deepest structural reforms are making human-machine interaction a core of safety certification, redesigning the attention handover and building data stewardship frameworks. These share a common premise: the gap between how safe systems are and how safely people use them cannot be closed by engineering alone. Closing it requires designing for how people actually behave.
Download the report
Learn more about these trends and the crucial steps different stakeholders in the mobility ecosystem must take for a safer mobility future across markets.
