Can India’s Roads Become Safer? Lessons from Japan on Parking, Traffic and Saving Lives
Road safety is therefore not merely a transport issue. It is a public-health issue, an economic issue and, ultimately, a human issue. The question is no longer whether India needs stronger road-safety action. The question is: what should we change first, and what can we learn from countries that have made sustained progress?
The road belongs to people too.
In June 2026, the Supreme Court of India made a powerful constitutional statement: the right to walk on a demarcated footpath is a fundamental right. The Court held that this right forms part of the constitutional right to movement under Article 19(1)(d), read with other fundamental rights, and that pedestrian movement on proper footpaths has priority over movement by motorised vehicles.
The judgment arose from the tragic death of a five-year-old boy who was walking to school when he was struck by a tanker. The Court used the case to address a wider problem: pedestrians are too often expected to compete with motor vehicles for whatever road space remains. It said that where a road exists, there is a corresponding duty on urban development authorities, municipalities and panchayats to provide, demarcate, maintain and safeguard footpaths.
This changes the way we should think about road safety. A footpath is not leftover space after the needs of cars are satisfied. It is essential public infrastructure. If a parked vehicle blocks a footpath, a pedestrian may be forced into the carriageway. Parking control, therefore, is not only about reducing congestion—it can also help protect the right to walk safely.
Japan offers an interesting lesson—not because its system can simply be copied, but because it treats road space differently. A road is primarily a place for movement and safety, not a convenient extension of someone's garage. That principle has implications for one of India's most visible urban problems: vehicles parked on the road, sometimes for hours or overnight.
The hidden cost of parking on the road
Walk through a busy Indian neighbourhood and the problem is easy to see. A road designed for two-way movement becomes a narrow corridor because cars and other vehicles occupy one or both sides. A pedestrian approaching a parked vehicle may have to step into moving traffic. A driver approaching a junction may have a blocked view. An ambulance or fire engine may lose precious seconds trying to pass.
Parking is not the only cause of congestion or crashes, and it would be wrong to claim that parking restrictions alone can solve India's road-safety crisis. But poorly managed roadside parking can reduce usable road width, obstruct emergency access, affect visibility and create conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. That makes parking policy part of a wider safe-system approach.
Japan's lesson: a car needs a place to sleep
Japan has a distinctive approach to vehicle storage. Under its automobile parking-space system, owners of ordinary automobiles generally have to establish an adequate parking or storage place off the road, and a Parking Space Certificate is required for vehicle registration in applicable areas. The declared space has to satisfy specified conditions, and police procedures can include verification of the parking location.
Japan also restricts keeping a vehicle on the road as a storage place. Its rules prohibit continuously parking a vehicle in the same place for 12 hours or more, or for 8 hours or more during the night from sunset to sunrise, subject to specified exceptions. Illegal parking can also be subject to police enforcement.
More vehicles—but very different levels of ownership
The scale of motorisation also matters. India had an estimated 226 million vehicles in its on-road stock in 2023, with about 163 registered vehicles per 1,000 people. Japan had about 78.45 million motor vehicles in 2023 and 622 motor vehicles per 1,000 inhabitants in the JAMA international comparison. These figures are not perfectly like-for-like because the vehicle categories and reporting definitions differ; India's figure includes its very large two-wheeler population, while the Japanese comparison uses a different vehicle classification.
| Indicator | India | Japan | Key message |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total vehicle stock, 2023 | ≈226 million | ≈78.45 million | India has the larger absolute stock; Japan has far more vehicles relative to population. |
| Vehicles per 1,000 people | ≈163 | ≈622 | Japan had about 3.8 times as many vehicles per 1,000 people. |
| Passenger cars, 2023 | ≈32 million | ≈62.16 million | Japan had roughly twice as many passenger cars despite its smaller population. |
| Passenger cars per 1,000 people | ≈24 | ≈493 | Car ownership is dramatically higher in Japan; India is much more two-wheeler-heavy. |
These figures reveal an important paradox. India has a much larger absolute vehicle stock, but Japan has far more vehicles per person. Yet Japan has developed stronger systems for ensuring that vehicles have appropriate storage spaces and that roads remain available for movement and pedestrians. India's vehicle stock is also heavily dominated by two-wheelers. The lesson is not that fewer vehicles are automatically safer, but that vehicle growth must be accompanied by planned parking, road-space management and protection of pedestrians.
This produces an important paradox. Japan has many more vehicles per person, yet it has developed stronger systems for deciding where vehicles can be stored and how road space is allocated. India has fewer vehicles per person but a huge and rapidly growing vehicle population, especially two-wheelers. That gives India an opportunity to act before vehicle ownership becomes even harder to manage in dense cities.
The idea is simple but powerful: before a private vehicle becomes part of the traffic system, there should be somewhere appropriate to keep it when it is not being used. In applicable areas, Japan's parking-space certificate system links vehicle registration with proof of a legitimate storage place. It does not mean that every vehicle purchase everywhere in Japan is universally prohibited without a garage; rather, the requirement operates through registration and ownership procedures in designated areas.
What if India adopted a similar principle?
Imagine a new private car being registered in a congested city only after the owner demonstrates access to an adequate parking space. The space could be private, rented or part of an approved residential or public parking facility. The purpose would not be to stop people from owning cars. It would be to stop public roads from becoming permanent storage spaces for private vehicles.
Such a policy could be introduced gradually, beginning with the most congested cities and newly registered private cars. It could be combined with resident parking permits, paid parking, shared parking facilities, exemptions for essential services and affordable alternatives for households that do not have private parking.
The potential benefits are broader than parking itself: more usable carriageway, clearer intersections, better pedestrian visibility, easier movement for ambulances and fire services, and more predictable traffic flow. Most importantly, the policy could shift the mindset from “Where can I leave my vehicle?” to “Where can my vehicle be safely stored without taking road space away from everyone else?”
India and Japan: the fatality gap
The contrast between the two countries is striking, although their raw totals cannot be compared without considering population, vehicle exposure, road-use patterns and differences in reporting systems. India reported 1,77,175 road deaths in 2024. Japan recorded 2,663 deaths in 2024 using its 24-hour definition, and 2,547 deaths in 2025—the lowest level since comparable records began.
| Indicator | India | Japan | What it suggests |
|---|---|---|---|
| Road deaths, 2024 | 1,77,175 | 2,663 | Large absolute difference; population and road exposure differ. |
| Road deaths, 2025 | — | 2,547 | Japan recorded its lowest level since comparable records began. |
| Change in deaths, 2015–2024 | 20.55% increase | 35.3% lower | Shows substantial long-term decline in Japan. |
| Road traffic mortality rate (per 100,000 population), 2021 | 14.6 | 2.7 | Decline remained evident after accounting for population. |
| Parking / vehicle storage | No comparable nationwide system | Parking-space certificate in applicable areas | Registration procedures can require proof of an appropriate storage place. |
Japan's official statistics also show a long-term decline: deaths in 2024 were 35.3% lower than in 2015, while deaths per 100,000 population were 33.9% lower over the same period. This decline cannot be credited to parking regulation alone. Japan's experience reflects decades of enforcement, safer road design, speed management, vehicle and occupant protection, traffic-safety policy and systematic efforts to reduce risk.
That is the important lesson for India. Laws work best when they are part of a system. A parking rule by itself will not prevent a drunk-driving crash. A helmet law will not fix a dangerous junction. A speed limit will not help if nobody enforces it. Road safety improves when engineering, enforcement, behaviour, emergency care and policy reinforce one another.
The people behind the numbers
India's burden is particularly heavy among people in their working years. In 2024, people aged 18–45 accounted for 66.1% of road-crash deaths, while people aged 18–60 accounted for 83.3% of fatalities. Two-wheeler riders represented 46.2% of fatalities and pedestrians 20.6%.
| Indicator | 2024 |
|---|---|
| Total reported road accidents | 4,87,707 |
| People killed | 1,77,175 |
| People injured | 4,71,441 |
| Average crashes per day | ≈1,338 |
| Average deaths per day | ≈485 |
| Two-wheeler share of fatalities | 46.2% |
| Pedestrian share of fatalities | 20.6% |
| Fatalities on National Highways | 64,772 (36.6%) |
| Fatalities on State Highways | 39,277 (22.2%) |
| Fatalities on other roads | 73,126 (41.3%) |
| Deaths among people aged 18–45 | 66.1% of total fatalities |
These numbers tell us something important: road safety is not an abstract government target. Every statistic represents a parent, child, colleague, friend or breadwinner. A road crash can remove a person from a family within seconds and leave survivors with lifelong disability, financial hardship and psychological trauma.
Five changes India cannot postpone
- 1Control speed where people walk and cycle. Lower, credible speeds in high-pedestrian areas can reduce both the likelihood and severity of crashes.
- 2Make drink-driving enforcement consistent, particularly at night, while strengthening action against repeat offenders.
- 3Make seat belts and helmets habitual rather than optional. With two-wheelers accounting for 46.2% of fatalities, motorcycle safety deserves sustained attention.
- 4Design roads for human error. Good roads should include safer crossings, footpaths, appropriate lighting, traffic calming, safer intersections and protection from dangerous roadside conflicts.
- 5Manage parking as a road-safety issue. Roads should not become long-term storage areas simply because off-street parking is inadequate. Cities need a combination of parking regulation, enforcement and realistic alternatives.
Enforcement is where good laws become real
India already has many road-safety laws. The challenge is consistent implementation. A rule that is rarely enforced becomes a suggestion. A rule that is predictable, fair and consistently enforced changes behaviour.
This is where technology can help: digital parking permits, automated enforcement, transparent fines, towing of dangerous obstructions, location-based parking management and better crash-data systems can make enforcement more targeted and accountable. But technology should support—not replace—good road design and human judgement.
A different definition of a successful road
We often judge transport systems by how quickly vehicles move. But perhaps the better question is: how safely can people move? A road that moves traffic quickly but regularly kills pedestrians is not a successful road. A city with abundant parking but constant congestion is not necessarily a well-managed city.
India can learn from Japan without trying to become Japan. The goal should be to identify principles that work: keep roads clear for movement, provide legitimate places to park, control dangerous speeds, protect vulnerable road users, enforce rules consistently and investigate every fatal crash for lessons.
The ultimate target should be simple: no family should have to accept a preventable road death as the price of mobility. India's roads can be busier, more efficient and safer—but only if safety becomes the starting point rather than an afterthought.
Road safety: from rules to responsibility
India's 2024 figures are a warning, but they can also become a turning point. Stronger enforcement, safer road design, better emergency response and smarter parking policy can work together. Japan's experience shows that sustained, system-wide action can produce long-term improvements.
The real test of progress is not the number of vehicles a city can accommodate. It is whether a child can cross the street, a pedestrian can walk safely, an ambulance can reach a patient and a family can return home without becoming another statistic.
Sources & Further Reading
- Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India — Road Accidents in India 2024.
- World Health Organization — Road traffic injuries; Global status report on road safety 2023.
- Japan National Police Agency — automobile parking-space / parking certificate procedures and traffic-safety information.
Additional Sources
- Supreme Court of India, Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz v. P. Ayyappan & Ors., 19 June 2026.
- CEEW, How Will India's Vehicle Ownership Grow by 2050? (2025).
- Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, Motor Industry of Japan 2024/2025.
- WHO Data Portal — Road traffic indicator
Disclaimer: This article is intended for legal awareness and public policy discussion purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice.