2 Progress towards the 2010 targets
Setting the targets
7. In 1987 the Government set the first national
road safety target: to reduce casualties by one third by 2000.
This was seen as groundbreaking. The main target was exceeded
and, by 2000, deaths had fallen by 39% and serious injuries by
45%. The overall number of accidents and of slight injuries, however,
remained unchanged in the context of a 30% increase in the number
of licensed motor vehicles and a 32% increase in vehicle miles
travelled.[14]
8. The current targets for road casualty reduction
in Great Britain were published in March 2000 in Tomorrow's
Roads - safer for everyone.[15]
This strategy, co-signed by the Minister for Road Safety in the
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and his
counterparts in the Scottish Executive and National Assembly for
Wales, set the targets to be achieved by the year 2010, taking
the average of years 1994-98 as the baseline.[16]
9. The three targets for Great Britain were:
- A reduction of 40% in the number
of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents;
- A reduction of 50% in the number of children
killed or seriously injured (children are defined as being those
aged under 16); and
- A reduction of 10% in the slight casualty rate,
expressed as the number of people slightly injured per 100 million
vehicle kilometres.
Box 1: Definitions of "killed" and "injured" used in UK road casualty statistics
|
"Killed: |
Human casualties who sustain injuries leading to death less than 30 days after the accident. (This is the usual international definition, adopted by the Vienna Convention in 1968.)
|
"Serious injury:
| An injury for which a person is detained in hospital as an 'in- patient', injury or any of the following injuries whether or not they are detained in hospital: fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, burns (excluding friction burns), severe cuts, severe general shock requiring medical treatment and injuries causing death 30 or more days after the accident. An injured casualty is recorded as seriously or slightly injured by the police on the basis of information available within a short time of the accident. This generally will not reflect the results of a medical examination, but may be influenced according to whether the casualty is hospitalised or not. Hospitalisation procedures will vary regionally.
|
"Slight injury:
| An injury of a minor character such as a sprain (including neck whiplash injury), bruise or cut which are not judged to be severe, or slight shock requiring roadside assistance. This definition includes injuries not requiring medical treatment."
|
Source: Department for Transport 2008: Road Casualties Great Britain, Main Results 2007 (Definitions).
|
10. The setting of the targets was supported
by considerable statistical and policy evaluation.[17]
The potential contributions to casualty reduction, beyond the
existing trend lines, were calculated for a range of policy initiatives.
These included additional measures to reduce drinking and driving,
further work to improve secondary safety in vehicles,[18]
new road safety engineering schemes and safety on rural single-carriageways
(which have a high rate of fatal accidents). Thus, the targets
were not merely extrapolations of trends but ambitious statements
of priority and intent.
11. Subsequently, in 2002, the road safety Public
Service Agreement of the Department for Transport was enhanced
to reflect the higher number of road casualties that occur in
disadvantaged areas. It was agreed to achieve a higher level of
reduction in disadvantaged areas - defined as the 88 Neighbourhood
Renewal Fund areas.
12. Slightly different targets were set for Northern
Ireland:[19]
- A reduction of one third in
the number of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents;
and
- A reduction of 50% in the number of children
killed or seriously injured.
These were to be achieved in the period 2002-2012
and measured against the 1996-2000 average.
13. The Government has continued to recognise
improving road safety as one of its core transport objectives.
Promoting safety, health and security is one of the five key objectives
in Towards a Sustainable Transport System.[20]
Whilst this document does not elaborate on how the strategy for
sustainable transport links with the road safety strategy, the
intent at least is clear.
14. Some organisations have commented positively
on how the Government has moved away from dealing with road safety
in isolation and is increasingly linking it to other key policy
areas, such as social inclusion, young people, and improved health.[21]
15. We commend the Government
on having set and maintained ambitious road traffic casualty reduction
targets. We also commend it for recognising that road safety needs
to be integrated with other important policy objectives such as
promoting good health, reducing carbon-dioxide emissions, tackling
deprivation and improving quality of life. The Government has
not sought to reduce casualties by discouraging vulnerable road
users from taking to the streets; but some trends, such as increased
traffic, have had this effect. We recommend that in the forthcoming
White Paper on sustainable transport, road safety objectives should
be integrated with these wider objectives. We also recommend that
the road safety strategy for beyond 2010 be explicitly set in
the context of wider policy objectives. This should help to ensure
that road safety is seen as relevant in other policy areas and
that road safety policies do not have unintended consequences
on other important objectives, such as improving public health
by encouraging walking, cycling and play.
Progress since 2000
16. The Government is on track to meet all its
road safety targets by 2010.[22]
By 2007:
- the number of people killed
or seriously injured was 36 per cent below the 1994-98 average;
- the number of children killed or seriously injured
was 55 per cent below the 1994-98 average;
- provisional estimates show the slight casualty
rate was 30 per cent below the 1994-98 average; and
- the additional target for reducing casualties
in areas of deprivation was met in 2005.[23]
17. Not surprisingly, the Government has tended
to report this as "good progress".[24]
In his evidence to us, the Minister, Jim Fitzpatrick MP, was more
circumspect. He told us
In general terms, casualty reduction has been good
but not good enough, particularly in terms of deaths. Our target
was set in terms of the combined figure for deaths and serious
injuries. The trend in these has diverged unexpectedly [
][25]
18. Those who have looked more closely at the
figures have raised concerns. Two official reviews have been undertaken,
in 2004[26] and 2007.[27]
The more recent review noted:
- good overall progress against
the targets but serious injuries falling much more rapidly than
deaths;
- little progress in reducing car user deaths;
- a significant rise in motorcyclist deaths;
- particular concerns about male drivers, younger
drivers and rural roads; and
- possible changes in the level of accident reporting
to the police, based on comparison of hospital and police data.[28]
19. A further report concluded that the casualty
reductions anticipated in 2000 would not be achieved on current
trends by 2010. Three policy measures had exceeded expectations:
road safety engineering measures, improved secondary safety in
cars and additional measures for speed reduction. However, in
terms of casualty reductions from certain other major policy measures,
little or no progress was likely to be achieved by the end of
the target period due to a lack of initiatives.[29]
These were notably:
- improving safety on rural single-carriageway
roads;
- reducing casualties in drink-drive accidents;
and
- reducing the accident involvement of novice drivers.
20. The road safety target for deprivation was
met in 2005. However, significant disparities remain in casualty
rates according to levels of income. Child pedestrians from the
lowest socio-economic groups are 21 times more likely to be killed
in a traffic accident than those from the top socio-economic group.[30]
This inequality is not restricted to child pedestrians: less affluent
car users are also at greater risk of death than the more affluent.[31]
Dr Christie felt that the target had not been sufficiently stretching
and that, having achieved it, there was a danger that the problems
would be overlooked.[32]
We urge
the Government to renew its focus on tackling the appalling level
of child road traffic deaths associated with deprivation.
Reliability of data
21. The Government's assessment of "good
progress" towards its main target (reducing the number of
people killed or seriously injured by 40%) relies largely on the
reduction in serious injuries, rather than deaths. There are approximately
ten serious injuries reported for each death, so trends in serious
injuries dominate the target. Whereas deaths have declined by
18% since the baseline, serious injuries have declined by more
than twice as much (37%). This was not anticipated when the target
was set.
22. The Government's monitoring data are based
on police records of road accidents and casualties on a form known
as "STATS19". The forms are collated by the local highway
authorities and forwarded to the Department for Transport. It
has long been known that not all accidents are recorded on the
STATS19 system[33] and
that some accident types, such as pedal cyclist accidents, are
disproportionately under-recorded (see Box 2). It has been assumed,
however, that these data would give a robust picture of the trends
(if not the absolute numbers), just as a sample survey should
do. This assumption, sometimes referred to as the "trend
defence", rests on the underlying principle that, even if
not all accidents are reported, the proportion which go unreported
is likely to remain pretty constant. There is, however, increasing
evidence that reporting and recording has changed over the period
and that the STATS19 data do not give a reliable picture, particularly
of the trends in serious injuries. Indeed, the trend defence is
now challenged by some of the statisticians responsible for compiling
the data.[34]
Box 2: Sources of under-reporting and under-recording of road accidents
|
- Not all road accidents are "reportable": for example, if no injury occurs. The requirements to stop, provide information and report a road traffic accident are set out in the Road Traffic Act 1988 (section 170), as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991 (Schedule 4);
- There is no legal obligation for drivers to report road accidents to the police, provided the parties concerned exchange personal details at the scene;[35]
- Some accidents that should be reported by drivers to the police are not reported. This may be because the driver is ignorant of the legal requirements or is reluctant to do so, for example, if the driver has been drinking or is uninsured;
- The police do not record all accidents reported to them. Up to one fifth of casualties reported to the police are not recorded in the STATS19 system;[36] and
- It is often difficult for a police officer to judge whether a casualty should be classified as having a serious or slight injury (see Box 1). For example, the full severity of the injury may not be apparent until some time after the collision when the police officer is no longer present. Research has found that the police tend to underestimate the severity of the injury.[37]
|
23. There are a number of reasons to believe that the actual
decline in serious injuries is not as great as that recorded in
STATS19 statistics:
- Hospital data suggest that serious injuries are not falling.[38]
There are differences in the criteria and hospital data are not
necessarily 'correct' but this divergence has been confirmed by
a number of in-depth studies.[39]
Personal injury insurance claims are rising[40]
and collisions attended by the Fire and Rescue Service have not
shown a decline.[41]
- Over long periods the ratio between deaths and
serious injuries has been 11-13 serious injuries for each death.
Yet since 2000 the ratio has declined almost every year, without
explanation, so that now there are only 9 serious injuries reported
for each death.[42]
- Improvements in medical care can be expected
to have saved the lives of some road accident victims who would
previously have died. The number, however, is disputed. The College
of Emergency Medicine says that advances
in medical care have had a considerable impact in recent years[43]
whilst the Minister told us that this has made little difference
to the casualty figures.[44]
Life-saving medical care would tend to reduce the figure for deaths
but not for serious injuries.
- Witnesses representing the police pointed out
that the police tended to report only those accidents that they
attended and that a reduction in the number of roads police officers
had led to a reduction in accident reporting.[45]
- Analysis of serious injury records shows that
it is the less severe 'serious injuries' which are declining more
rapidly than the more severe 'serious injuries'.[46]
These are also the types of injury less likely to be reported
to the police.
24. We asked many of our witnesses why serious
injuries appeared to have declined so rapidly whilst deaths had
not. Mr David Lynam of the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL)
thought that there had been some changes in policy and in vehicle
design that might explain a small increase in the chance of fatal
outcomes but "that is explaining only a proportion of the
difference we see."[47]
No-one was able to offer a more convincing explanation, other
than the possibility that reporting rates had changed. The Transport
Research Laboratory investigated possible explanations, particularly
seat-belt wearing rates and an increase in 'unsurvivable' accident
types, but found that these did not explain the divergence.[48]
An analysis of Scottish casualty data found that, relative to
hospital records, police reporting rates fell substantially between
1997 and 2005.[49]
25. The Department for Transport has acknowledged
weaknesses in the police data and publishes caveats with the relevant
statistics. For example:
"[
] research has shown that an appreciable
proportion of non-fatal injury accidents are not reported to the
police. [
]. up to a fifth of casualties reported to the
police are not included in the statistical return. Moreover, studies
also show that the police tend to underestimate severity of injury
because of the difficulty in distinguishing severity at the scene
of the accident."[50]
26. Differences between police and hospital records
are not peculiar to road-traffic casualties: there is a similar
discrepancy in the recorded numbers of injuries due to violence.[51]
The Department has commissioned research to further compare police
and hospital casualty data. This shows a decline in the rate of
reporting of serious injuries.[52]
27. The reporting of accidents involving only
slight injuries has always been acknowledged to be less robust
than that for more serious injuries. Furthermore, the reporting
of slight injuries also appears to have declined.[53]
Although slight injuries are still an important issue, particularly
for vulnerable road users,[54]
our witnesses generally attached little credence to the slight
injury target.
28. The Department for Transport seems reluctant
to contemplate that all these findings might imply some fundamental
problems. "We do not see it as a major problem, but there
is a discrepancy. [
] We are very happy with the STATS19
figures we get from the police and have no reason to doubt that
they are not in about the right place [
]."[55]
29. Up to this point we have accepted the assurances
of the Government that its casualty data were robust and that
good progress was being made on bringing down the number of people
killed or seriously injured. Given the significant yet unexplained
divergence in the trends for deaths and serious injuries, and
given the growing body of evidence of changes in the reporting
rates, we can no longer conclude that good progress is being made
on casualty reduction. Indeed, we are worried that Ministers are
not challenging their officials sufficiently and that policy-makers
and practitioners are being lulled into a false sense of security.
30. The reality is that STATS19 is a system for
recording accidents reported to the police, in order to assist
with road safety measures. It is well established that some common
categories of injury-accident are disproportionately under-recorded.
It was never designed to be a scientific method for recording
overall trends in accidents or casualties. It is neither a census
of all accidents, nor a properly structured sample.
31. The Government should establish
a British Road Safety Survey to track overall casualty and safety
trends. This would be a structured survey, gathered from a statistically
significant sample of households, similar to the National Travel
Survey. It would, therefore, not rely on levels of reporting by
road users or police. It would be akin to the British Crime Survey
which is seen as a more reliable long-term monitor of crime than
the police crime statistics. This would involve original survey
work, and might also draw on existing data sources, including
police, hospital and insurance company data, to obtain a more
rounded picture. A survey would have the additional benefit of
being able to monitor attitudes to road safety including, for
example, the fears of vulnerable road-users.
32. Chief Constable Steve Green of the Association
of Chief Police Officers emphasised that the police were not deliberately
misreporting or under-recording road casualty data.
One thing I would say absolutely categorically is
there is no organised conspiracy to under-record. There is no
incentive to do so because there is no result at the end of it,
partly because so little priority is given to road safety in the
Home Office list of priorities.[56]
33. Other witnesses emphasised the value and
quality of STATS19 data for a range of practical purposes.[57]
We make no criticism of the police with regard to STATS19 reporting.
The police have no mandate to seek out unreported accidents, nor
the time or qualifications to make complex assessments of the
severity of injuries. Equally, we accept that STATS19 data provides
some valuable information.
34. There is a significant body
of evidence to suggest that the current methods for recording
road-traffic injuries are flawed. We recommend that the Government
commissions an independent review of the STATS19 system in order
to establish its strengths and weaknesses, bearing in mind our
recommendation above for a British Road Safety Survey. The review
should also examine ways in which the system could be simplified,
with a view to promoting greater consistency, and consider ways
of routinely linking police and hospital data.
Reductions in road deaths
35. Whereas we have reservations about the accuracy
of the serious injury data, there seems to be agreement that few,
if any, deaths go unrecorded. These give a less controversial
account of the Government's success with reducing casualties.
The reviews of 2004 and 2007 noted the disappointing progress
in reducing deaths.
36. The casualty figures for Great Britain for
2007 were significantly different to previous years in that the
number of deaths fell sharply. Compared with 2006:
- overall deaths fell by 7%,
contrasting with only 11% in the previous ten years;
- the number of child deaths fell by 28% to its
lowest ever total; and
- deaths among car users declined by 11%.
The 2007 figures are extremely welcome.
37. The Minister was understandably wary about
placing too much emphasis on a single year and there has not been
time for the data to be fully analysed to see if there are particular
reasons for them.[58]
It remains to be seen whether this represents the result of particular
events, a random fluctuation, or the start of a new trend.[59]
38. The changes in deaths over the whole period,
compared to the 1994-98 average, are shown in Table 1. This shows
that 632 fewer people (18%) died on the roads in 2007. Table
1: Change in deaths by road user group, 1994-98 average to 2007
Road user group
| 1994-98 Average
| 2007
| Change (%)
|
Pedestrians | 1008
| 646 | -362 (-36%)
|
Cyclists | 186
| 136 | -50 (-27%)
|
Motorcyclists |
467 | 588
| +121 (+26%) |
Car users | 1762
| 1432 | -330 (-19%)
|
Bus & Coach |
20 | 12
| -8 (-40%) |
LGV & HGV |
118 | 110
| -8 (-7%) |
All users |
3578 | 2946
| -632 (-18%)
|
Source: Department for Transport, Road Casualties
Great Britain 2007: Annual Report, September 2008.
39. Excluding bus and coach users where the numbers
are very small, the biggest absolute and percentage fall is in
pedestrian deaths, which have declined steadily, by 36% over the
period. Cyclist deaths have also declined substantially, by 27%.
The distances walked and cycled per person have stayed fairly
constant over the period but total distances travelled by these
modes have increased due to growth in the population.[60]
The percentage reductions in child pedestrian and cyclist deaths
are even greater (Table 2). There is, however, some evidence that
part of the reduction is due to increased restrictions on the
independent mobility of younger children,[61]
something that the National Travel Survey is not designed to monitor.
40. Car user deaths, particularly car drivers,
had reduced by only 9% prior to 2007. As this is the largest fatality
group, it is particularly worrying. In 2007 there was a sharp
fall giving a 19% reduction over the whole period.
41. The figure that most stands out is the 26%
increase in motorcyclist deaths. The amount of motorcycling
has increased over the period but so too have the amounts of driving,
walking and cycling whilst the numbers of deaths for these groups
has reduced.
42. Accidents involving young drivers, particularly
young males, are also a major concern. We have previously drawn
attention to it in our Report Novice Drivers which showed that:
- 27% of 17-19 year-old males
are involved in a road collision as a driver in their first year
of driving; and
- one in eight driving licence holders is aged
under 25, yet one in three drivers who die in a collision is under
25, and almost one in two drivers killed at night is under 25.
Despite the improvements in 2007, drivers aged between
16 and 29 years still make up 42% of all driver deaths. We highlight
this issue again in paragraphs 67-77 below.Table
2: Change in child deaths, 1994-98 average to 2007
Road user group
| 1994-98 Average
| 2007
| Change (%)
|
Pedestrians | 133
| 57 | -76 (-57%)
|
Cyclists | 43
| 13 | -30 (-70%)
|
Car users | 77
| 45 | -32 (-42%)
|
Others | 82
| 51 | -31 (-38%)
|
All users |
260 | 121
| -139 (-53%)
|
Source: Department for Transport, Road Casualties Great Britain
2007: Annual Report, September 2008.
43. Safety - as opposed to the mere absence of
accidents - can be measured by casualty rates based on distance
travelled. The fatality rates for different users are shown in
Table 3 below. These show that over the period 1997-2006 the fatality
rate has fallen for each of the main user groups, but more steeply
for pedestrians and pedal cyclists. Table
3: Deaths per billion passenger kilometres
Road user group
| 1997
| 2006
|
Pedestrians | 57
| 36 |
Cyclists | 45
| 31 |
Motorcyclists | 119
| 107 |
Car users | 3
| 2.5 |
Source: Road Casualties Great Britain 2007, Table
52
International comparisons
44. Compared to many other countries, the UK
has a low number of road deaths relative to its population. Its
position, however, has been slipping. In 2001 it was second behind
Malta in a table of 29 nations compiled by the European Transport
Safety Council. By 2006 it was down to sixth, behind Malta, the
Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway.[62]
Of the top ten nations, all had made bigger percentage reductions
in deaths than the UK.[63]
45. Mr Fred Wegman, Managing Director of the
Netherlands road safety institute SWOV, told us that
"Until 2000 we were always looking to the United
Kingdom when it came to road safety. You were the inventors of
many good activities and policies. All of a sudden, somewhere
in 2000, you stopped doing things and we [the Netherlands] continued
with our efforts."
46. His view is echoed by others with an international
perspective.[64] Many
of our witnesses suggested that the UK could learn most about
road safety from the examples of the Netherlands and Sweden, and
in different ways, France and Germany.[65]
47. Along with the evidence provided by our witnesses,
we have used the above tables on road deaths to identify priorities
for the future. We set these out below.
14 Department for Transport, Transport Statistics
Great Britain 2007, November 2007, Tables 8.1 and 9.1 Back
15
Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions, Scottish
Executive and National Assembly for Wales, Tomorrow's Roads
- safer for everyone, March 2000 Back
16
Major aspects of road safety have been devolved to the Scottish
and Welsh administrations and road safety as a whole is devolved
to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Department for Transport
has provided a detailed statement of the legislative and executive
competencies of the devolved administrations with regard to road
safety in Ev 357
Back
17
Broughton, J et al, The Numerical context for setting national
casualty reduction targets. TRL Report 382, 2000, Table
6 Back
18
Primary safety measures reduce the likelihood of a collision occurring;
secondary safety measures prevent or reduce the severity of an
injury in a collision. Back
19
Department of the Environment Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland
Road Safety Strategy 2002-2012, 2002 Back
20
Department for Transport, Towards a Sustainable Transport System,
Cm 7226, October 2007 Back
21
Ev 187 Back
22
Department for Transport, Road Casualties Great Britain 2007:
Annual Report, September 2008, p 21 Back
23
Department for Transport, Second Review of the Government's
Road Safety Strategy, February 2007. Published jointly with
the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly Government. Back
24
Department for Transport, Annual Report 2008, Cm 7395,
May 2008, p 125 Back
25
Q 356 Back
26
Department for Transport, Tomorrow's Roads - safer for
everyone: The first three year review, April 2004. Published
jointly with the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly Government. Back
27
Department for Transport, Second Review of the Government's
Road Safety Strategy, February 2007. Published jointly with
the Scottish Executive and the Welsh Assembly Government. Back
28
Ibid, para 60. Back
29
Broughton, J, Monitoring Progress towards the 2010 casualty
reduction target - 2005 data. TRL Report 663, 2007 (Table
A1) Back
30
Q 14 [Dr Christie]. See also Edwards, P., Roberts et al, "Deaths
from injury in children and employment status in family: analysis
of trends in class specific death rates", British Medical
Journal, 333, pp 119-121. Back
31
Ward, H et al, Fatal injuries to car occupants: analysis of
health and population data. Road Safety Research Report No
77, Department for Transport, February 2007, p 23 Back
32
Qq 14-17 Back
33
For example, Bull, J.P. and Roberts, B.J, "Road Accident
Statistics-A Comparison of Police and Hospital Information",
Accident Analysis & Prevention, 5, 1973, pp 45-53. Back
34
Ev 343 Back
35
For further explanation, see Ward, H, Lyons, R and Thoreau, R,
Underreporting of casualties - Phase 1, Department for
Transport Road Safety Research Report 69, June 2006, p 15. Back
36
Department for Transport 2007: Road Casualties Great Britain 2006,
p 1 Back
37
Ward, H (2006), op.cit. Back
38
Gill, M, Goldacre, MJ, Yeates, DGR, "Changes in safety
on England's roads: analysis of hospital statistics", British
Medical Journal, 23 June 2006 Back
39
Ward, H, (2006), op.cit. Back
40
Q 63. This could be a result, at least in part, of changes to
the law relating to personal injury and the introduction of conditional
fee agreements. Back
41
Q 187 and Ev 349 Back
42
Ev 272 Back
43
Ev 346 Back
44
Q 438; Ward et al,: Fatal injuries to car occupants: Analysis
of health and population data, Department for Transport Road
Safety Research Report no 77, 2007 Back
45
Qq 167-168 [Mrs Jan Berry of the Police Federation and Chief Constable
Steve Green of ACPO] Back
46
Ward, H, Lyons, R and Thoreau, R, Underreporting of casualties
- Phase 1, Department for Transport Road Safety Research Report
69, June 2006 Back
47
Qq 22-26 [Mr Lynam] Back
48
Broughton, J. and Walter, L, Trends in fatal car accidents.
TRL Report PPR172, 2007 Back
49
Broughton, J et al, SafetyNet. Building the European Safety
Observatory. Final Report on Task 15, 2007, p 37 Back
50
Department for Transport, Road Casualties Great Britain
2007: Annual Report, September 2008, p 1 Back
51
Q 24 Back
52
Ward, H (2006), op.cit. Back
53
Q 22 Back
54
Ev 179, 184 Back
55
Q 400 Back
56
Q 168 [Mr Green] Back
57
Ev 297 Back
58
Qq 413-415 Back
59
Road deaths have also declined sharply in the USA in 2007/08.
This has been attributed to a reduction in risky driving behaviour
and less driving by those with higher accident rates, as a result
of increased fuel prices. See Sivak, M, Is the U.S. on the
path to the lowest motor vehicle fatalities in a decade? UMTRI-
2008- 39, Michigan University, July 2008. Back
60
Ev 105 Back
61
Q 337 [Mr Voce]; also Cycling England, Cul-de-sac kids
survey, March 2008 Back
62
Department for Transport, Road Casualties Great Britain
2007: Annual Report, September 2008, Table 51 Back
63
Local Transport Today, op.cit. Back
64
Ev 333 Back
65
Ev 294 Back
|