Just finished recording a podcast episode with two superstar road safety practitioners and it got me thinking about how we better build a narrative around the overwhelming proportion of trauma that occurs on local roads. Here's my top five tips for how to reframe road trauma on local roads 1. Lead with the human impact, not the statistic “Three fatalities this year” is information. “A family now setting one less place at the dinner table” is reality. People connect to people before they connect to policy, data or infrastructure. Start with the human consequence, then bring in the evidence. 2. Avoid shock tactics, focus on truth and proximity instead Graphic trauma can create distance, defensiveness or disengagement. The most compelling messaging often sounds quieter and more relatable:“This happened on a road people drive every day.” “Someone was heading home from work.” “This wasn’t meant to happen here.” That’s what makes people lean in. 3. Frame road trauma as preventable, not inevitable One of the biggest narrative traps in road safety is language that makes crashes sound unavoidable. Words matter. Instead of:“Accidents happen.” Shift to:“These decisions, environments and systems shape outcomes.” People are more likely to support change when they believe change is actually possible. 4. Show the complexity without losing clarity Road trauma is rarely caused by “one bad driver.” It’s often a combination of:• road design• speed• distraction• fatigue• behaviour• policy• environment• enforcement• and human error The challenge is communicating that complexity in a way that still feels clear, grounded and emotionally understandable. 5. Respect the audience, don’t lecture them People switch off when messaging feels moralising or fear-based. The strongest communication invites reflection instead of blame. Less:“Drivers need to do better.” More:“We all make mistakes. The question is whether the system around us protects us when we do.”

Happy Friday Crew! This week is UN Global Road Safety Week. The theme is Safe Walking and Cycling. And already I can feel the sector preparing its response — the infographics, the stats, the infrastructure checklists, the modal shift talking points. All correct. All necessary. All completely missing the point. Here's my hot take: We keep framing this as a walking and cycling problem. It's not. It's a car-system problem that walking and cycling make visible. The moment we accept the framing of "pedestrian safety" and "cyclist safety" as their own categories, we've already lost the argument. We've handed the road back to the vehicle and asked the human to be careful in it. Less than a third of countries have policies that actively promote walking and cycling. Not because the evidence isn't there. Not because the co-benefits aren't compelling: health, economy, environment, equity. Because the narrative hasn't shifted. The story we're still telling at policy tables, in ministerial briefings, in road safety plans, is one where the car is the default and everything else is the exception that needs protecting. Until we change that story, we will keep producing safer exceptions. So this week, by all means share the statistics. But ask yourself: what story am I actually telling when I do? Am I reinforcing the frame or challenging it? That's the question I sit with every time I work with a client, write a LinkedIn, or stand up in front of a room of road safety professionals. The evidence is not the main problem. It's how we tell the story peeps. 💬 What's the dominant narrative in your jurisdiction right now and is it helping or holding you back?

There will be no 'humbled and honoured.' No stock photo of someone pointing at a graph. No judgement about your idea and ego's left at the virtual door. What there WILL be?! Road safety nerds geeking out, swapping war stories, workshopping ideas that might actually move the needle, and occasionally losing our minds over a roundabout. We're serious about the problem. We're not serious about ourselves. Welcome. Say something real.