SUMMARY

  Both the traffic police and their equipment should be financed out of transport budgets. This expenditure would deserve a high place in the allocation of transport budgets. The more that technology can be used to aid the traffic police in their duties, and to make traffic law self-enforcing, the better. The programme of installing speed cameras should not be run down but extended, but a better way of enforcing speed limits is through the vehicle. Fitting vehicles with variable speed limiters should be a priority. Driver-operated variable speed limiters making use of proven technology would be very cheap to fit and could have been introduced decades ago. Instead, the Government is pursuing research on externally activated limiters, which are much more problematic technically and could not be in use for many years, and it has not committed itself to introducing them even when their feasibility has been demonstrated. If this programme cannot be expedited, then the Government should revert to the driver-operated type. It should commit itself now to introducing variable speed limiters of one type or the other as soon as possible. The best way to reduce all the costs and nuisances of motor vehicles, and thereby to reduce the task of traffic policing, is to manufacture more modest vehicles. Construction and use regulations should be based on the principle that no vehicle should cause more danger, pollution or other nuisance, or consume more non-renewable resources, than its transport function requires. The Government should commit itself to this principle and to working in Europe for its adoption. Meanwhile, it should make full use of its powers of taxation to encourage the purchase and use of those models already on the market that have the least social and environmental impact.

  1.  Although more traffic police are needed, it would be hard to argue that traffic policing deserves a greater share of police time and financial resources than other policing tasks. But extra traffic policing should certainly give better value for money than most of the things on which transport budgets are now spent. The solution is to finance traffic policing out of transport budgets. Chief Constables would retain the right to transfer traffic police to other duties in emergencies or on special occasions. The extent to which such transfers were made would be monitored, and if it was too often, that would have to be sorted out between the police and the authority controlling the transport budget.

  2.  The more help that technology can give traffic police, and the more that traffic laws can be made self-enforcing, the better. Technological aids for traffic policing, like the traffic police themselves, should also be paid for out of transport budgets. The idea that speed cameras had to be self-financing never made economic sense—we do not expect traffic lights, bus lanes, speed humps and cushions, rumble strips and so on to be self-financing. This practice also gave a handle to those people anxious to discredit cameras by saying that the police and partnerships were motivated by a wish to make money for themselves.

  3.  It is widely believed that following the recent report on the effectiveness and the economic evaluation of cameras, the Government will reduce the programme. This may indeed be the Government's intention, but it should not be. The report calculated that the benefit/cost ratio of cameras was 2.7 to one. This is probably too low, since the report both overestimated to which casualties at the camera sites would have gone down, in line with the national trend, in the absence of the cameras, and also left out some important benefits (I can expand on these points if the Committee wishes). 2.7 to one is in any case a handsome ratio, sufficient to give cameras a high place in the allocation of a transport budget, although this fact may be obscured by the way in which absurd traffic forecasts inflate the benefit/cost ratios of major roadbuilding schemes.

  4.  The greatest help that could be given to traffic police would be to design vehicles with reduced powers of acceleration and lower top speeds, and, in so far as powerful vehicles would still be allowed, to make the driver-licensing laws much more stringent in order to restrict access to them. (More stringent driver licensing is especially important for motorcycles). The first step is to introduce variable speed limiters. Driver-operated variable speed limiters could have been introduced at any time in the last thirty years, if not before. The technology is almost identical to cruise control and the extra cost in mass production would be minimal.[1] Retrofitting costs more, but the cost should still be justified in cost/benefit terms.[2] The Government has, however, opted for the much more elaborate method of externally activated limiters. Even on optimistic assumptions, under the present programme externally activated limiters cannot be in operation for many years (is that why they Government prefers them?) and the Government has not committed itself to introduce them even when their technological feasibility has been demonstrated. Much more effort should be put into this programme, and if the introduction of externally activated limiters really cannot be substantially brought forward, then the Government should reintroduce the idea of driver-operated ones. Either way, it should announce now that it is fully committed to introducing variable speed limiters of one type or the other as soon as possible.

  5.  Social survey evidence (see table below) suggests that speed limiters would be popular with the public, but they would of course be unpopular with a minority of very vociferous people. This may account for the Government's cool attitude towards them, and indeed for its timidity about enforcing or reducing speed limits generally, even though speeding is a hugely resented nuisance. The Government's attitude is exemplified in the remarks by Mr Darling and Dr Ladyman quoted below. Dr Ladyman's remarks are especially shocking. He is wrong on the facts, since strict enforcement is possible or could be made so, and his refusal even to attempt to enforce an important law is tantamount to an announcement that he is suspending it, which is a gross abuse of his Ministerial position. I hope Parliament, this Committee in particular, will not allow him to get away with it.

  6.  Variable speed limiters will always be needed to enforce speed limits lower than the national or motorway limit, but the best way to enforce the national limit, whether it stays the same or is reduced (the arguments that it should be no more than 55 mph are very strong), is not to allow vehicles on the road that exceed it, except perhaps by a very small amount. There is something ridiculous about allowing excessively fast and powerful cars on the road and then trying, at great expense and with only modest success, to stop people from using that power. The key to reducing all the dangers and nuisances of traffic, and with them the burden on the police, is to manufacture more modest vehicles. Unfortunately, both the Government and the motor industry are in denial about this obvious fact (I can produce the evidence for this remark if the Committee is interested). Construction and use regulations should be based on the principle that no vehicle should cause more danger, pollution or other nuisance, or consume more non-renewable resources, than its transport function requires. The Government should announce that it is committed to this principle and will urge it on our European partners (some of whom will need no urging) and the EU. In the meantime, it should make full use of its powers of taxation to encourage people who want cars to buy use those models already on the market that have the least social and environmental impact.

THE PUBLIC'S ATTITUDE TO SPEED AND SPEED LIMITERS

  Social surveys going back more than 30 years have demonstrated the widespread resentment people feel about speeding traffic. Here are some examples out of many.

  Surveys carried out by Social and Community Planning Research (SCPR) in the 1970s showed the great importance of intimidation by traffic in people's lives. Their study on road traffic and the environment, based on a representative sample of more than 5,000 adults in England, showed pedestrian danger to be of much greater concern than other nuisances of traffic such as noise, fumes, vibration and dust and dirt. 27% of respondents were seriously bothered by it and 69% bothered to some degree. 29% said they sometimes felt endangered when walking on pavements or alongside the roads near where they lived. 53% were worried about the road safety of others, especially children and, even more, elderly people. (Jean Morton-Williams, Barry Hedges, Evelyn Fernando Road Traffic and the Environment, SCPR, 1978) In another study, people were asked what they would do if given the chance to make their street or road a better place to live in. More people chose to reduce traffic disturbance than to make an improvement not related to traffic, such as tree planting or better street cleaning or rubbish collection. Danger from heavy volumes of traffic or from fast-flowing traffic was of more concern than other traffic nuisance. Respondents were then asked to imagine that they could improve the amenity, with respect to traffic, of the street where they lived or their local shopping centre by accepting some increase in the time they spent travelling each week, or could sacrifice some amenity in order to reduce travel time. Forty-four per cent chose to improve their environment; only three per cent to reduce their journey times. (Gerald Hoinville and Patricia Prescott-Clarke Traffic Disturbance and Amenity Values, SCPR, 1972.  See especially pages vii, viii, 24.) Another study asked people what they would look for when choosing a new area to live in. The three things ranked highest were good shops close by, safety from road traffic, and peace and quiet. (Gillian Courtenay Greater Nottingham Problems and Preferences, SCPR, 1974).

  A study published in 1991 looked at changes in children's mobility between 1971 and 1990 in five sharply contrasting areas in England ranging from an inner London suburb to a rural parish in Oxfordshire. (M Hillman, J Adams and J Whitelegg One False Move. . . a Study of Children's Independent Mobility, PSI 1991) It showed a marked decline in children's independent travel and activities. For example, in 1971 80% of children aged seven or eight went to school on their own, but in 1990 only 9%. The most frequently cited reason for parents restricting their children's freedom was fear that they might be injured in a road accident. The 2002 NTS showed that 80% of primary school children were usually accompanied to school by an adult. Traffic danger was given as the reason by three out of five of these people. (Barbara Noble, Dorothy Salathiel, Paul McDonnell, paper given to the Transport Statistics Users Group, April 2005).

  The most obvious example of the way that danger distorts travel and prevents people from behaving as they would like to is cycling. Cycling in Britain has shown a long-term decline. In 2004, cycle mileage was less than quarter of what it had been in 1954.  (Transport Statistics Great Britain 2005, Table 7.1) This is in sharp contrast with what has been happening in several other European countries, where cycling has been vigorously encouraged. Danger is always the most important reason that people give for not cycling, and this is supported by their behaviour. A study in the 1970s based on an analysis of Census data on journeys to work showed the very close connection between safe conditions for cycling and the amount of cycle travel. It was found that in flat, safe towns some 43% of journeys to work were made by cycle, but in flat, dangerous towns only 6%. (J A Waldman Cycling in Towns, a Quantitative Investigation, Department of Transport, 1977) (There has always been a question, however, as to the direction of the causal connection. It is to be expected that safe conditions would encourage cycling, but it may be more important that when many people cycle, drivers take more care.) In a summary of its research on cycling published in 1998, the TRL concluded that "cycling can be increased by targeted efforts but that more radical measures towards traffic reduction and improved safety will be needed to sustain significant increases in utility cycle use". (D G Davies, P Emmerson, G Gardner Achieving the Aims of the National Cycling Strategy: Summary of TRL Research, TRL 365, !998). There is a lot of evidence that reducing the speed of traffic on roads which cyclists share with other traffic is a more effective way of reducing danger to cyclists than segregation.

  (FRANKLIN John Cycle path safety: a summary of research http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/infra/research.html)

  In 1999, the CPRE undertook a survey of people's experience of country lanes. 1,022 people were interviewed in 21 districts in different parts of England. Nearly two-thirds said that they or their families felt threatened by traffic either all or some of the time when walking, cycling or riding in country lanes. (Rural Traffic Fear Survey, CPRE 1999)

  The British Crime Survey 2004 showed that many more people perceived speeding traffic to be a very (12%) or fairly (31%) big problem of anti-social behaviour in their local areas, than any other nuisance such as rubbish/litter, vandalism, teenagers hanging around. (Martin Wood Perceptions and experience of anti-social behaviour: findings from the 2003/2004 British Crime Survey, Home Office Online Report 49/04.)

  In December 1992, the following questions were placed on a Gallup omnibus survey by RoSPA. Do you think cars should have speed limiters fitted, that is, a device that automatically prevents a given speed being exceeded? To what speed should they be limited in your opinion?

	All respondents	Car in household
		Yes	No
Base	1,212	846	366
Yes	69%	63%	83%
No	27%	34%	13%
DK	4%	4%	5%
All saying yes	831	529	302
Under 40	10%	8%	15%
40-49	6%	5%	10%
50-59	12%	12%	14%
60-69	18%	18%	16%
70	30%	34%	33%
71-79	3%	4%	1%
80-89	8%	9%	5%
90 or over	3%	4%	1%
DK	10%	7%	15%

  It is perhaps fair to comment that some of those who objected to a fixed speed limiter of the sort apparently referred to might have found a variable speed limiter, especially one operated by the driver, more acceptable.

THE GOVERNMENT'S ATTITUDE TO SPEED LIMITS AND THEIR ENFORCEMENT

Compare and contrast

  1.  "The one critical success factor underpinning best practice in all case study areas was the introduction of area-wide 20 mph zones. This, coupled with extensive use of pedestrianised areas, has had a dramatic effect on the "urban experience". It has been fundamental in prompting both strong growth in walking and cycling and in the ability of public transport to compete with the private car. The balance has been shifted away from "movement space" to "exchange space" where the focus is on personal interaction rather than on mobility in car dominated streets.

  "This initiative has helped to transform the case study cities across Europe from being noisy, polluted places into vibrant people centred environments as well as facilitating the widespread re-allocation of street space to public transport, cycling and walking to meet increased demand."

  European Best Practice in Delivering Integrated Transport Commission for Integrated Transport, November 2001, Chapter 4.

  2.  The following report appeared in Local Transport Today 2 December 2004.

  "Transport Secretary Alistair Darling has spoken of his dislike for area-wide 20 mph zones.

  "In an interview with the London Evening Standard, Darling said: "There's quite a substantial lobby, people saying we should have 20 mph speed zones through large swathes of towns and cities. I don't think that's right, partly because I don't think it is necessary, partly because it would be difficult to enforce.

  "`There are cases where 20 mph limits are justified, such as outside a school or a hospital for a short period, but we need to be sensible and grown-up about these things,' he said."

Dr Ladyman in Parliament, 29 November 2005

  Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much extra carbon dioxide in tonnes per annum he estimates arose from the driving of road vehicles in excess of 70 mph in each of the last five years. [30926]

  Dr Ladyman: If no vehicles exceeded the speed limits on motorways and dual carriageways we have estimated that savings in the region of 0.5 million tonnes of carbon per annum could theoretically occur. In practice, however, it would be virtually impossible to enforce blanket compliance with the 70 mph speed limit, and the Government have no intention of introducing such a policy.

6 February 2006

2   Stephen Plowden and Mayer Hillman Speed Control and Transport Policy, PSI 1996, page 137. Back