Memorandum submitted by the Parliamentary
Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS) (ST 9)
1. PACTS welcomes the Draft School Transport
Bill and the opportunity to respond to the Education and Skills
Select Committee inquiry into the bill. PACTS is an associate
parliamentary group and registered charity advising and informing
Members of Parliament on road, rail and air safety issues. It
brings together technical expertise from the public, private,
academic and professional sectors to promote research-based solutions
to transport safety problems. Its charitable objective is to promote
transport safety legislation to protect human life.
2. School transport is an important issue
with clear safety implications. While there will no doubt be debate
on a number of areas of relevance to the bill—including
parental choice, environmental impact, public health and education—PACTS'
response to the inquiry will focus on the safety aspects of the
Bill. Providing and improving safe routes to school should be
a key aim of the pilot schemes. PACTS particularly welcomes the
suggestion in the prospectus of the Bill for increased provision
for "pupils travelling along routes that parents consider
unsafe" and "an enhanced focus on transport safety issues".
3. While the UK has one of the best road
safety records in Europe, the number of child pedestrians killed
or seriously injured on UK roads is proportionally among the highest
in Europe. In 2002, there were 4,596 children aged 15 or under
killed or seriously injured in road incidents, 4,094 of whom were
of school age and 2,828 were pedestrians.[4]
4. In 2000, the Government published Tomorrow's
Roads: Safer for Everyone,[5]
which set targets for reducing road casualties by 2010. The targets
include:
— 40% reduction in the number of people
killed or seriously injured (KSI) in road accidents compared to
the 1994-98 baseline average; and
— A 50% reduction in the number of
children killed or seriously injured in road accidents compared
to the baseline.
In 2002, a PSA target was added to address the
significantly higher number of road casualties that occur in disadvantaged
areas. There has been significant progress towards the targets:
in 2002 there was a 17%
reduction in all KSI casualties and a 33% reduction
in child KSI casualties compared to the baseline.[6]
More action will be necessary, however, to ensure the targets
are met. School transport schemes have the potential to help achieve
these targets, in particular the target relating to child casualties.
5. Slightly more than half of children's
exposure to traffic risk occurs on weekdays during term time.[7]
The journey to and from school accounts for just under 20% of
child casualties.[8].
Risk peaks at 3pm when the school day finishes, but continues
to be high throughout the afternoon. Thus, while the majority
of child casualties occur outside the school day, the school journey
can still pose a significant risk.
6. In addition to reducing child casualties
during the school journey, school travel schemes also have the
potential to educate children about safe use of the road and allow
children to develop pedestrian and cyclist skills in a structured
environment. While casualty savings from these schemes are difficult
to assess, the importance of developing road skills is clear.
7. Safe routes to school projects have been
very positive in helping to achieve these objectives. These initiatives
have included local route mapping, infrastructure improvements,
educational activities (including cycle and pedestrian training),
supervised "walking buses", and competitions such as
Surrey County Council's "Golden Boot Challenge". Given
the importance of engaging pupils and parents and assessing the
local environment, these schemes are best developed at a local
level. It is important, however, to disseminate good practice
and to ensure that adequate funding and staff support are available
so that schools have capacity to develop effective schemes.
8. The Secondary Heads Association has expressed
concern that school travel planning would increase bureaucracy
and place further strain on overcrowded curricula.[9]
While these concerns are no doubt valid, safe routes to school
initiatives are often very good examples of integrating life skills
with learning. Consideration needs to be given to how school travel
can be integrated into education without overburdening students,
teachers or staff.
9. The Draft Prospectus for the Bill highlights
problems with the current Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport
Safety PACTS' Response to the Education and Skills Select Committee
Inquiry into the Draft School Transport Bill statutory walking
distances to school. One problem is that the current limits do
not take into account the nature of the route nor the presence
of pedestrian facilities. The Transport Committee's recent report
on School Transport draws attention to an alternative system operating
in Denmark:
The Danish Government introduced legislation
which requires that every child has a safe route to school and
gives a firm definition of safe route. If there is no such route,
free bus transport must be provided.[10]
This model is a positive one as it bases requirements
on safety rather than distance. The feasibility of adopting such
a model in the UK should be assessed.
10. Considerable attention has been given
to the possibility of using US-style yellow buses for school transport.
These have significant potential to encourage modal shift and
to improve safety. Buses are among the safest forms of road transport:
there are on average 11 killed or seriously injured casualties
per billion passenger kilometres among bus and coach users; this
compares to 32 among car users, 522 among pedestrians, 634 among
pedal cyclists and 1,407 among motorcyclists.[11]
11. Despite the low overall casualty rates,
concern has been expressed about use of the "three-for-two"
rule (which "allows three seated children under 14 to count
as two passengers if seat belts are not fitted") and the
lack of a common standard regarding seat belts in school buses.
While bus accidents are rare, the use of seat belts can substantially
reduce the risk of injury in the event of a crash. Local authorities
should therefore take seat belt provision into consideration when
commissioning school buses and monitor the safety of school bus
passengers.
12. In order to be effective, bus schemes
will need to be carefully monitored to ensure that any modal shift
occurs through reducing car traffic rather than at the expense
of walking and cycling.
13. While bus provision and education initiatives
are important, road engineering measures also need to be integrated
into consideration of school transport. Child road casualties
can be significantly reduced through measures such as 20 mph zones.
In Hull, for example, 20 mph zones have led to a 74% reduction
in child pedestrian injury and a 69% reduction in child cyclist
injury.[12]
Glasgow City Council has recently Parliamentary Advisory Council
for Transport Safety 19 April 2004 PACTS' Response to the Education
and Skills Select Committee Inquiry into the Draft School Transport
Bill embarked on a programme of creating temporary 20 mph zones
outside of schools. This is a dynamic idea that could potentially
be replicated as part of school travel plans. Speed management
initiatives such as these and other improvements to the street
environment are essential elements to creating safe routes to
school. Given that the majority of child casualties occur outside
the school day, they may also contribute to improving safety for
children outside of school journeys.
14. While reducing school run congestion
is an important goal, it should not automatically be assumed that
reducing congestion will reduce road casualties. A recent report
for the Department for Transport found that "for both urban
and peri-urban sites the accident rate in congested conditions
was less than half the rate in uncongested conditions".[13]
A specific emphasis on improving safety—and not solely on
reducing traffic—will be necessary to achieve casualty reductions.
15. School transport is a complex topic without
single solutions. While provision of dedicated school buses may
offer improvements to school transport and child safety, pilot
school travel schemes should include measures aimed at including
the safety of all modes. These may include education and provision
for walking and cycling, mapping of safe routes to school, and
improvements to the street environment such as traffic calming.
4 National Statistics/DfT. 2003. Road Casualties Great
Britain 2002: Annual report. TSO: London. Back
5
DETR. 2000. Tomorrow's Roads: Safer for Everyone. DETR: London. Back
6
National Statistics/DfT. Op cit. Back
7
Bly, P, Dix, M, and Stephenson, C 1999. Comparative Study of
European Child Pedestrian Exposure and Accidents. DETR: London. Back
8
AA Motoring Trust. 2003. The facts about road accidents and children.
AA Motoring Trust: London. Back
9
Secondary Heads Association. 2004. Memorandum to House of Commons
Transport Committee Inquiry on School Transport. 23 January 2004. Back
10
Transport Committee. 2004. School Transport. Ninth Report from
Session 2003-04. HC 318. TSO: London. Back
11
National Statistics/DfT. Op cit. Back
12
Grayling, T, Hallam, K, Graham, D, Anderson, R and Glaister,
S, 2002. Streets Ahead: Safe and liveable streets for children.
IPPR: London. Back
13
Brownfield, J, Graham, A, Eveleigh, H, Ward, H, Robertson, S,
and Allsop, R 2003. Congestion and Accident Risk. Road Safety
Research Report No 44. DfT: London. Back
| 
