Brembo Study: Why Riders Feel Safer Than They Really Are

• 90 percent of road users feel safe, but only 45 percent of mobility experts do
• Brembo’s study surveyed 6,157 people across ten major vehicle markets
• The gap is widest in Brazil, China and India: 94 percent versus 18 percent

How safe traffic really is and how safe it feels are apparently two different things. That is the conclusion of the Brembo study “Safety in Motion: Driving Trust in Modern Mobility,” created together with Economist Enterprise. It examines how road users, industry and experts assess the safety of modern mobility. Because it concerns everyone on the road, the topic also affects motorcyclists. For a niche where riding has a lot to do with trust in technology and in one’s own abilities, the numbers are worth a closer look.

What Did the Brembo Study Examine?

The study measured the sense of safety in road traffic across ten major vehicle markets and compared it with the assessment of experts. 6,157 people were surveyed, including 5,135 ordinary road users and 1,022 experts from politics, infrastructure, vehicle manufacturing and technology. The ten countries — Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the USA — together account for around 75 percent of global vehicle production. The survey ran in April and May 2026 and was supplemented by an analysis of existing research as well as an advisory board of experts. As a backdrop, the study cites a sobering figure: around 1.2 million people die in road traffic worldwide every year.

Why Do Laypeople Feel Safer Than Experts?

Because their trust is shaped more by visible progress than by actual accident figures. 90 percent of the road users surveyed say they feel safe in everyday traffic. Among the experts who plan, build and operate traffic systems, only 45 percent say the same. From the study’s perspective, this gap is dangerous, because too much trust can make people less attentive in traffic. Jean Todt, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Road Safety, classifies this as a serious problem. He says trust is a basic prerequisite for mobility, but excessive trust leads people to take unnecessary risks. Elsewhere he stresses that trust on the road is not a given but must be earned, and that only concrete action saves lives.

Where Is the Trust Gap Largest?

The gap is widest in Brazil, China and India. There, 94 percent of road users feel safe, but only 18 percent of experts do. At the same time, these three countries together record an average of 16.2 road deaths per 100,000 inhabitants — roughly twice the average of the markets studied. Study lead Pratima Singh of Economist Enterprise attributes this to the rapid and visible modernization in these countries, for example through new infrastructure and more modern vehicles. Trust, she says, has grown faster there than actual safety. When people believe systems are safer than they really are, they often lack the necessary attentiveness.

How Does Trust Relate to Income and Age?

The sense of safety is not evenly distributed across groups. People with low incomes report low or mixed trust in their daily safety almost twice as often as people with medium or high incomes. There are also differences between generations. Millennials are the most confident, with 94 percent reporting high trust. Generation Z and baby boomers are more reserved, with 12 percent and 16 percent respectively expressing only low or mixed trust.

Driver Assistance Systems and Their Marketing as a New Risk

For experts, the biggest risk today no longer lies in the technology itself but in how it is used. Only 3 percent of them see mechanical defects as one of the main causes of accidents. Instead, 30 percent name the incorrect use or misunderstanding of driver assistance systems as the biggest problem. A further 24 percent see features that distract from traffic as a serious risk. Road users themselves name their own behavior as their biggest concern. Ignacio Alvarez, head of research at Brembo, points out that such systems need to be clearly explained to users, with an unambiguous statement of what they can and cannot do. Advertising is also criticized: 65 percent of experts believe it overstates the capabilities of these systems. 62 percent feel it creates the impression that less attention is needed. And 60 percent believe the benefits are emphasized far more than the limitations of the technology are explained. Pratima Singh sums this up by saying that the real risk lies in the interface between human and machine, and in increasingly automated systems.

Against this backdrop, several countries are working on stricter rules. In China, authorities are examining tighter oversight of assistance systems following a fatal accident involving a Xiaomi vehicle. In Europe, a Swedish transport authority advises against approving Tesla’s supervised self-driving software EU-wide as long as it can exceed permitted speed limits. A UN panel on vehicle standards has also recently adopted new rules for automated driving systems.

What Do Road Users Demand?

Despite the high sense of safety, many respondents want stricter rules. 88 percent support stronger measures, such as lower speed limits and more controls, and say they would even pay more for safer traffic systems. On the other hand, 68 percent of experts see poor coordination between industry and regulators as the biggest obstacle to greater safety. Brembo President Matteo Tiraboschi sums it up by saying that this trust gap can only be closed together: “Industry must continue to drive innovation responsibly, and policymakers must create effective regulatory frameworks. Together, they must help people understand both the possibilities and the limits of new technologies.”

Four Trust Patterns Across Countries

The study groups the ten markets into four patterns, since trust depends less on technology than on culture, institutions and regulation. Brazil, China and India are classified as “trust optimists,” with a gap of 76 percentage points between users and experts and, at the same time, the highest death rates in the study. The “trust guardians” Japan and South Korea have the smallest gap, at 84 versus 70 percent, underpinned by reliable inspections and stable institutions. France, Germany and Italy are described by the study as “trust pragmatists”: low death rates, but a gap of 39 percentage points and skepticism toward technology perceived as opaque or overstated. The United Kingdom and the USA, finally, are classified as “trust mediators,” with high user trust of 92 percent that is closely tied to trust in institutions.

For the motorcycling world, the study’s core message is especially relevant: a good feeling does not replace actual safety. The study does not distinguish between individual vehicle types, but the basic idea applies to everyone on two wheels as much as on four. Anyone who trusts their own abilities and the technology in their vehicle too much easily underestimates the remaining risk.

Frequently Asked Questions