Portugal Has Been Talking About Road Safety for Decades. But Are We Actually Teaching People How to Drive Safely?
Portugal has no shortage of road safety initiatives.
There have been:
Campaigns.
Congress sessions.
Studies.
Reports.
Legislation.
Enforcement operations.
National strategies.
European recommendations.
Television advertisements.
Social media campaigns.
Awareness programmes.
The message has been repeated for decades:
Slow down.
Don’t drink and drive.
Don’t use your phone.
Wear your seat belt.
Keep your distance.
Be careful.
Drive safely.
And yet the fundamental question remains:
Are we actually teaching Portuguese drivers how to avoid crashes?
This is not a question about whether road safety professionals are working.
Many are.
It is a question about whether the system is producing the behavioural change we need.
Because if the same risky behaviours continue to produce deaths and serious injuries year after year, perhaps we need to ask whether telling people what they should do is enough.
1. The Numbers Force Us to Ask the Question
According to the Portuguese National Road Safety Authority (ANSR), 2024 recorded 475 fatalities under the 24-hour indicator, together with 2,675 seriously injured people and 43,319 slightly injured people.
In the 30-day fatality framework used for national road-safety targets, the figure cited by ANSR for 2024 was 618 deaths and 2,626 seriously injured people.
The numbers may fluctuate from year to year.
Definitions and statistical indicators may differ.
But one fact remains difficult to ignore:
Portugal continues to experience a serious road-safety problem.
And this has been the case despite decades of campaigns, legislation, enforcement and strategic planning.
So the uncomfortable question is justified:
Are we doing the right things — or simply doing the same things repeatedly?
2. Awareness Is Not the Same as Competence
Most Portuguese drivers already know that speeding is dangerous.
They know that alcohol affects driving.
They know that using a mobile phone while driving is dangerous.
They know that seat belts save lives.
They know that tailgating is risky.
They know that driving too fast for the conditions is dangerous.
So why do these behaviours continue?
Perhaps the problem is no longer primarily a lack of information.
Perhaps it is a lack of behavioural competence.
Knowing something is dangerous does not automatically mean knowing how to manage it.
There is a fundamental difference between:
“I know I shouldn’t lose control of the car.”
and:
“I understand what causes loss of control, recognise it developing, and know how to respond.”
Those are completely different levels of knowledge.
3. Campaigns Tell Drivers What Not to Do
Road-safety campaigns have an important role.
They can create awareness.
They can keep road safety visible.
They can influence public attitudes.
They can remind drivers of known risks.
But there is a limitation.
A campaign can tell a driver:
“Don’t drive too fast.”
But does it teach the driver:
- how speed changes stopping distance?
- how speed affects cornering?
- how to choose an appropriate speed?
- how road conditions change available grip?
- how to recognise when a vehicle is approaching its limits?
- how to react when the front loses grip?
- how to react when the rear starts to rotate?
This distinction matters.
Because road safety is not only about knowing the rule.
It is about being capable of applying the principle when the situation becomes difficult.
4. We Teach People to Pass the Driving Test
This may be one of the biggest structural problems.
The driving licence system necessarily focuses on establishing a minimum level of competence.
That is understandable.
But obtaining a licence is not the same as becoming a highly competent driver.
A newly licensed driver may know:
How to move off.
How to change gear.
How to park.
How to use indicators.
How to obey traffic signs.
But have they experienced:
Emergency braking?
Loss of front grip?
Loss of rear grip?
Aquaplaning?
Sudden obstacle avoidance?
Weight transfer?
Vehicle instability?
The consequences of excessive speed in a controlled environment?
In many cases, the answer is no.
And then we place the driver directly into real traffic.
5. We Expect Experience to Teach What Training Didn’t
There is a widespread assumption:
“They will learn with experience.”
Experience certainly teaches.
But experience is not necessarily structured learning.
A driver can repeat the same mistake for twenty years.
That does not make the mistake correct.
In fact, experience can sometimes reinforce bad habits.
A driver who has repeatedly:
- braked late;
- driven too fast;
- followed too closely;
- taken corners aggressively;
- used the phone;
- or driven while fatigued
without having an accident may eventually conclude:
“I’m a good driver.”
Nothing happened.
Therefore, the behaviour must be safe.
It isn’t.
It may simply mean that the consequences have not arrived yet.
6. The Problem With “Nothing Happened”
This is one of the most dangerous psychological mechanisms in driving.
A driver exceeds the speed limit.
Nothing happens.
They brake late.
Nothing happens.
They look at their phone.
Nothing happens.
They enter a corner too quickly.
Nothing happens.
They follow another vehicle too closely.
Nothing happens.
The behaviour is repeated.
Eventually:
Risk becomes normal.
The absence of a crash becomes interpreted as evidence of competence.
But it isn’t.
It is simply the absence of a negative outcome.
7. We Talk About Accidents Instead of Crash Prevention
Road safety discussions often begin with the accident.
Where did it happen?
Who was involved?
What caused it?
How many people died?
How many were injured?
These questions matter.
But perhaps we should go one step further.
Before the crash:
What did the driver see?
What did the driver understand?
What did the driver decide?
What did the driver do?
What could the driver have done differently?
This shifts the focus from the accident itself to the driver decision-making process.
And that is where prevention begins.
8. “Human Error” Is Not an Explanation
One of the most common conclusions after a collision is:
“Human error.”
But human error is not a complete explanation.
What caused the error?
Was it:
- inadequate hazard perception?
- excessive speed?
- distraction?
- fatigue?
- poor training?
- overconfidence?
- insufficient following distance?
- misunderstanding of vehicle dynamics?
- poor decision-making?
- lack of experience?
- pressure from work?
- inappropriate road design?
If we simply write:
HUMAN ERROR
we may close the investigation instead of opening it.
The better question is:
Why did the human make that error?
9. We Need to Teach Drivers About the Physics of Driving
Many drivers understand traffic rules.
Far fewer understand vehicle dynamics.
They may never have been taught properly about:
Grip.
Weight transfer.
Braking forces.
Cornering forces.
Understeer.
Oversteer.
Aquaplaning.
Tyre limitations.
Load distribution.
Emergency manoeuvres.
Yet these concepts determine what the vehicle can and cannot do.
A driver does not need to become a racing driver.
But every driver should understand one fundamental principle:
The car cannot always do what the driver asks it to do.
There are physical limits.
Understanding those limits changes behaviour.
10. Drivers Need to Experience the Limits Safely
This is where practical training becomes fundamentally different from awareness campaigns.
You can tell someone:
“Don’t brake too late.”
Or you can allow them, in a controlled environment, to experience the difference between:
progressive braking
and
emergency braking.
You can explain understeer.
Or you can allow a driver to experience what it feels like when the front tyres stop responding as expected.
You can explain weight transfer.
Or you can demonstrate what happens when braking, steering and acceleration are combined.
Experience creates a different kind of knowledge.
It creates physical understanding.
11. The Goal Is Not to Teach Drivers to Drive at the Limit
This distinction is crucial.
Professional defensive and evasive driving training should not encourage drivers to explore the limits of grip on public roads.
Quite the opposite.
The objective is to understand the limit so that drivers learn to stay away from it.
A driver who understands how quickly a vehicle can lose stability may become more conservative.
A driver who understands how long it takes to stop may leave a larger safety margin.
A driver who experiences understeer may better understand why entering a corner too quickly is dangerous.
A driver who understands weight transfer may appreciate why abrupt inputs can destabilise the vehicle.
Knowledge of the limit can therefore create respect for the limit.
12. The Difference Between Reactive and Proactive Safety
Traditional road safety often operates reactively.
An accident occurs.
We analyse it.
A campaign is launched.
A warning is issued.
A new enforcement operation begins.
But proactive safety asks a different question:
Can we identify the behaviour that precedes the accident?
For example:
Speeding → reduced safety margin
Close following → reduced reaction time
Distraction → delayed perception
Late braking → increased emergency demand
Aggressive steering → increased instability
These behaviours can potentially be identified and addressed before the crash.
13. We Already Know the Main Problems
This is another uncomfortable point.
We do not necessarily need another decade of research to discover that:
Speed matters.
Alcohol matters.
Distraction matters.
Fatigue matters.
Seat belts matter.
Following distance matters.
Vehicle condition matters.
The challenge is increasingly not identifying the risks.
It is changing behaviour at scale.
Portugal’s national enforcement plans continue to focus on recurring issues such as speed, alcohol, safety equipment, mobile-phone use and powered two-wheelers.
That tells us something important:
These risks remain relevant.
But it should also make us ask:
Why are the same behaviours still requiring the same campaigns year after year?
14. Perhaps We Need Less “Lecture” and More “Capability”
This does not mean eliminating awareness campaigns.
It means recognising their limits.
Perhaps the next step is to move from:
“We need to make drivers aware.”
towards:
“We need to make drivers capable.”
Capable of:
- anticipating hazards;
- identifying risk;
- controlling speed;
- braking effectively;
- managing vehicle balance;
- recognising loss of grip;
- making evasive decisions;
- and maintaining safety margins.
Awareness tells people that danger exists.
Capability gives them tools to manage it.
15. What Would a Different Approach Look Like?
Imagine a driver development system in which drivers progressively learn:
LEVEL 1 — Awareness
Understanding the major causes of crashes.
LEVEL 2 — Risk Perception
Learning to identify hazards before they become emergencies.
LEVEL 3 — Vehicle Dynamics
Understanding grip, braking, weight transfer and stability.
LEVEL 4 — Practical Control
Learning emergency braking and evasive manoeuvres in a controlled environment.
LEVEL 5 — Decision-Making
Learning how speed, distance and anticipation create safety margins.
LEVEL 6 — Continuous Development
Measuring behaviour and reinforcing improvement over time.
This is fundamentally different from:
Campaign → Message → Driver goes home.
16. The Question of Measurement
There is another problem.
How do we know whether a campaign worked?
How many people saw it?
How many remembered it?
How many changed their behaviour?
How long did the change last?
These are difficult questions.
But they are essential.
If the objective is to reduce crashes, the ultimate measure cannot simply be:
“How many people saw the campaign?”
It must eventually become:
“Did behaviour change?”
And then:
“Did risk decrease?”
17. What If We Measured Drivers Differently?
Imagine if drivers were assessed not only on whether they had an accident, but also on:
Hazard perception.
Following distance.
Speed management.
Braking technique.
Cornering behaviour.
Distraction.
Anticipation.
Vehicle control.
Decision-making.
We would begin to create something very different:
A driver performance profile.
That profile could then be used to identify specific training needs.
This is far more proactive than waiting for an accident.
18. Corporate Fleets Are a Perfect Example
Companies already understand the importance of risk management.
They manage:
- financial risk;
- cyber risk;
- occupational risk;
- operational risk;
- compliance risk.
But driver risk is sometimes treated differently.
A fleet may contain dozens or hundreds of people driving thousands or millions of kilometres every year.
Yet the organisation may know very little about how those people actually drive.
That is a significant risk-management gap.
A vehicle fleet without a driver-risk strategy is only partially managed.
19. The Portuguese Driver Does Not Need Another Lecture
Perhaps this is the most provocative conclusion.
The average Portuguese driver has heard the message.
Many times.
Don’t speed.
Don’t drink.
Don’t use your phone.
Wear your seat belt.
Be careful.
The problem is not necessarily that drivers have never heard these things.
The problem may be that we have not sufficiently taught them:
How to recognise danger.
How to anticipate it.
How to control the vehicle.
How to react when things go wrong.
How to make better decisions before things go wrong.
That is a very different educational challenge.
20. This Is Where DRIVING X Believes Change Must Begin
At DRIVING X, we believe road safety needs to evolve from information to competence.
From:
Campaigns → to capability.
From:
Awareness → to experience.
From:
Rules → to understanding.
From:
Accident analysis → to risk prevention.
From:
One-off training → to continuous driver development.
The objective is not to create drivers who are faster.
It is to create drivers who are:
More aware.
More predictable.
More technically competent.
Better prepared for emergencies.
More capable of managing risk.
And ultimately:
Less likely to become involved in a crash.
21. We Should Stop Asking Only “Who Was at Fault?”
When something goes wrong, the easiest question is:
“Who was at fault?”
The more useful question may be:
“What could have prevented this?”
That question changes everything.
It moves the conversation from blame to prevention.
From punishment to education.
From statistics to behaviour.
From reaction to anticipation.
And from the accident that already happened to the accident that might still be prevented.
FINAL THOUGHTS
Portugal has spent decades talking about road safety.
We have campaigns.
We have legislation.
We have enforcement.
We have studies.
We have reports.
We have strategies.
We have increasingly sophisticated vehicles.
And yet serious road crashes remain a major national problem.
The answer is not necessarily to abandon everything that has been done.
It is to ask whether what we are doing is sufficient.
Because there is a fundamental difference between:
telling people to drive safely
and
teaching people how to drive safely.
The first is communication.
The second is education.
And education requires more than information.
It requires:
Knowledge.
Experience.
Practice.
Feedback.
Assessment.
Continuous development.
Perhaps the next generation of Portuguese road safety should therefore be built around one simple question:
Are we teaching drivers how to avoid crashes — or are we simply teaching them to fear the consequences of having one?
At DRIVING X, we believe the answer must be clear.
Don’t just tell drivers what not to do.
Teach them what to do.
DRIVING X
From awareness to competence.
From reaction to prevention.
From driver training to driver development.
Because the objective of road safety should not simply be to explain why crashes happen.
It should be to make them less likely to happen in the first place.