Memorandum by the Local Government Association
(RTS 21)
ROAD TRAFFIC SPEED
1. The Association welcomes the opportunity
to respond to this inquiry. It has been brought to the attention
of all of the Association's member authorities and of the relevant
officer societies and a number will be taking the opportunity
to respond direct. The Association would suggest that the submissions
from officer societies be given particular attention. The Association
does not have access to independent statistics relating to the
causes of crashes. Submissions to the Committee from individual
authorities should be able to give useful statistical information
about local experiences. No doubt the DTLR and lobbying organisations
too will have considerable relevant material.
THE ROLE
OF ILLEGAL
AND INAPPROPRIATE
SPEED
2. The Committee will be aware of the debate
which has surrounded the difference in emphasis between the importance
of the definitions "illegal" and "inappropriate",
as applied to speed, and indeed how inappropriateness might be
measured. The Government's speed review of 1999 has given some
consideration to how speed limits might be related more effectively
to local circumstances, without making signing and local regulations
so complicated that both road users and local authorities become
confused and enforcement becomes difficult.
3. Whilst there is a vocal lobby which suggests
that safely driven vehicles are less likely to crash whatever
speed they are driven at, it is inevitable that the faster the
speed the more severe the risk of serious injury or death. It
might be argued however that the difference between, say 70 mph
or 80 mph on a motorway is less significant than between 30 mph
and 20 mph in a residential area, where non-motorists are more
likely to be the victims in crashes, however caused. Highway Codes
for decades have emphasised the stopping distances depending on
speeds driven, although these cannot readily take account of varying
vehicle performance. Arguments that crumple zones and other in-built
safety features make motor vehicles "safer" when driven
at higher speeds, generally do not make them safer for cyclists
and pedestrians on mixed use roads.
4. The traffic free-flow philosophy as applied
to town planning through the 1960s and 1970s has led to divided
communities with the social implications which this brings. The
current Social Exclusion Unit study into transport and social
exclusion, which your Committee had asked for, should be able
to come to some conclusions about the extent of this problem over
the course of the year. The former philosophy implied that the
time savings of not allowing congestion to develop was more valuable
to society as a whole than the disbenefit caused to the local
community by isolating one side of the road from the other. The
current Home Zones and Quiet Lanes initiatives, which many of
the Association's member authorities are participating in wholeheartedly,
takes the opposite view, that the quality of life for communities
can be greatly enhanced by slowing traffic to an appropriate speed
for the local streetscape and pedestrian activities.
TACKLING THE
PROBLEMS
5. The debate around whether more legislation
would assist enforcement, whether self-enforcing measures are
more appropriate, and whether adequate resources are being directed
at enforcing traffic management legislation in general, appears
to be almost continuous. Unfortunately the British motorists'
approach to traffic regulations often appears to require physical
measures for effective enforcement rather than relying on the
compliance of drivers to signed limits or prohibitions. However,
physical measures are less flexible than cameras and police enforcement,
and some physical measures may impede emergency services and bus
routes, so enforcement effort will need to be maintained at an
appropriate level. In its response to the DTER consultation on
road traffic penalties in March 2001 the LGA commented that any
review of road traffic penalties for speeding offences should
take on board whether existing speed limits are appropriate in
all circumstances. The Government's speed policy review in 1999
covered many of the questions set out in the Committee's current
inquiry and the Association's full response to that consultation
exercise is available to the Committee on request.
TAKING THE
RIGHT ACTIONS
6. Fast acceleration, and an ability to
manoeuvre at high speed, are marketed by vehicle manufacturers
as safety points. While this may be correct in comparison with
older vehicle models, such advertising could encourage driving
habits amongst drivers who do not have the necessary ability to
make quick decisions at high speeds, and there may be a case for
further encouragement to motor manufacturers to include a more
distinct "health warning" about appropriate driving
styles, similar to that applied to tobacco advertising. The Association
would be interested in the comments made to the Committee by outside
bodies on the activities of local government in this field.
SPEED MANAGEMENT
STRATEGIES
7. Highway authorities are likely to have
speed management strategies as part of the road safety plans and
Local Transport Plans. Often LTPs will include strategies for
extending traffic calming measures. Unfortunately effective physical
measures can be capital intensive and it is not possible to meet
the aspirations of all residents' groups for priority consideration.
8. In view of the time allowed for compiling
this submission, it is necessarily brief and can take into account
only a few comments from member authorities. There will be further
discussions between the Association's elected members over the
coming weeks, and if any significant additional points arise then,
hopefully, there will be an opportunity to bring them to the Committee's
attention.
7 January 2002
| 
