Vulnerable road users
Motorcyclists
78. The substantial rise in the number of motorcyclist
deaths stands out in stark contrast to the reduction in deaths
for all other road user groups. On current trends motorcyclist
deaths will soon exceed pedestrian deaths. The casualty rate for
motorcyclists (in terms of deaths per 100,000 kilometres travelled)
is over 40 times that for car users (Table 3).
79. The Motorcycle Action Group (MAG) told us
that other European countries, which have higher rates of motorcycle
use, have lower motorcycle collision rates because drivers are
more aware of motorcyclists. MAG believes that up to the mid-1990s
motorcyclists were given no official consideration but progress
is now being made "[…] with the Government's Motorcycling
Strategy and with more local authorities beginning to think seriously
about motorcycling [but] we are way behind the game."[102]
The Government has set up a national advisory committee and is
working with a range of interests to ensure that motorcycling
is seen as a central part of road safety policy.[103]
80. We have previously drawn attention to the
dreadful motorcyclist casualty rate and we have called for radical
action.[104] The various
parties now recognise the issue and seem to be working together
on the problem. However, the statistics show how much remains
to be done.
81. We recommend that the Government
redoubles its efforts to improve the safety of motorcyclists and
to ensure that their safety is seen as central to its road safety
strategy. This needs to be communicated effectively to all parties
involved with road safety.
82. The causes of motorcyclist
accidents and remedial measures need to be thoroughly investigated
and the results communicated to road safety professionals, motorcyclists
and other road users.
Child pedestrians and cyclists
83. The view of many of our witnesses was that
the UK's record on the safety of child pedestrians and cyclists
was disappointing.[105]
This is confirmed by the Government's own assessment.[106]
The significant reductions in child deaths, particularly in the
past few years, show encouraging progress, although some of this
appears to be due to increased restrictions on children's mobility,
which might in turn have negative consequences such as increased
child obesity.
84. It is also clear that cosseting children
from traffic and depriving them of the opportunity to learn about
risks and road skills is not a sensible or responsible approach.
In many cases, this merely defers the danger to later in the child's
life. Mr Armstrong of Living Streets highlighted how the incidence
of serious accidents suffered by children doubles between the
ages of 10 and 11 years. Living Streets believes this to be because
many primary school children are driven to school but then travel
independently to secondary school, without having had the opportunity
to develop adequate road safety skills.[107]
There are other good reasons why children need independent mobility
and physical activity, including preventing obesity and developing
as confident, independent young people. The Government has recognised
this in its Fair Play strategy launched in April 2008.[108]
85. The fatality rates for child pedestrians
and child cyclists in 24 countries are shown in Table 4. As the
amount of cycling varies considerably across countries, the combined
pedestrian-cyclist fatality rate probably best describes the safety
of child road-users. Great Britain is ranked 9th and the UK is
11th. The safety of children in Northern Ireland is particularly
poor, with only the Republic of Korea (South Korea) having a worse
death rate.
86. We have noted earlier the strong links between
deprivation and child casualties. Dr Christie was clear that the
most important measures needed in poorer areas were improvements
to the local environment to calm traffic and to create safer places
for children to play. Involving the local community and strengthening
neighbourhood policing are also important.[109]
87. It is important to distinguish between casualty
reduction and danger reduction: the absence of death or injury
does not necessarily imply a safe environment. Professor Whitelegg
of Liverpool John Moores University was critical of dangers faced
by vulnerable road users in the UK, particularly child pedestrians
and cyclists. Other European countries, such as Sweden, Denmark,
Germany and the Netherlands, have gone much further than the UK
in adapting their urban areas for safer walking and cycling. Dutch
children spend around half their pedestrian time in traffic-calmed
streets compared with only 10% in England.[110]
Mr Sinclair of Help the Aged said that both older as well as young
people benefited from safe, well designed communities.[111]Table
4: International child fatality rates 2005
