House of Commons - Transport

Select Committee on Transport Eleventh Report

4 Delivery

125. Our witnesses were clear that the Government has a number of important roles to play with regard to road safety. These include:

Leadership;

coordinating strategy across departments;

integrating road safety with other policy, such as health and environment ;

research; and

funding.

126. In the main, witnesses felt that the Government should do more of all of these things. They particularly wanted stronger leadership - at Prime Minister or Cabinet level, as in France[144] - and better support for road safety across government departments. Research was generally seen as good but the results were not always carried through to implementation.

127. The road safety strategy cannot be delivered by the Department for Transport alone. During the course of our inquiry, the Road Safety Delivery Board - a cross-departmental body recommended in the 2007 progress review - held its first meeting.[145] The Minister outlined to us some of the discussions that he and his department are having with other Government departments, including the Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills, the Department of Health, the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office.[146] We note the statements by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the Department of Culture Media and Sport on the importance of creating safe environments for children to walk, play and cycle. We also note that Department of Children Schools and Families is taking a greater interest in road safety issues following the White Paper "Every Child Matters". We welcome all this, as did our witnesses.[147]

128. It is, however, evident that the road safety strategy has not had the full support of some of the most crucial departments since it was launched in 2000. As noted earlier in this report, the Home Office has given roads policing a low priority and Mrs Berry, Chairman of the Police Federation in England and Wales, questioned whether road safety targets now being set in local area agreements would be supported by the performance framework set by the Home Office.[148] The Health and Safety Executive has been reluctant to get involved in work-related road deaths and the Department of Health barely features in the original strategy. We do not doubt the willingness of the Department for Transport to engage with these other departments but we question its ability to get them to deliver.

129. It is vital that the Government provides leadership on road safety at the highest level and ensures that all Government departments play a full part in the future strategy. We are encouraged by the discussions going on between the Department for Transport and other departments. This needs to result in action across the board.

Road Safety Commission

130. Despite the best intentions of the Government and road safety professionals, progress with reducing deaths since 2000 has been inadequate and the reported reduction in serious injuries is questionable. Only a major shift in thinking and priority is likely to change this. The Government has not demonstrated sufficient rigour in monitoring progress; nor has it demonstrated sufficient high-level leadership or concerted cross-departmental action.

131. Some form of high-level, independent body is needed to ensure concerted Government action and a step-change in progress. This might be a Royal Commission for road safety. In recent years Royal Commissions have been set up to address major health and transport issues, such as the Royal Commission into Environmental Pollution. We believe that a quarter of a million people killed or injured every year warrants such a body.[149]

132. We do not believe that the Department for Transport's forthcoming road safety strategy review will have sufficient profile or the necessary cross-governmental authority to bring about the fundamental and long-term change that is needed. We therefore recommend that the Government establishes an authoritative and independent road safety commission that has powers to work across the whole of Government. The role of the commission should be to ensure that the Government gives high priority and adequate resources to road safety and that all government departments and agencies give active support. It should also have responsibility for monitoring progress, and developing more rigorous and holistic assessments. It might also investigate good practice, particularly in those countries that have overtaken the UK in road safety standards.

Vision and targets

133. There was a considerable view that a broader vision for road safety was needed. Numerical targets are important but they are not particularly meaningful for the general public. The Swedish Vision Zero and the Dutch sustainable safety vision give a stronger sense of the ultimate objective.

134. As we have shown above, many people see road safety as a much broader issue than casualty reduction alone. There are conflicting perspectives and sometimes competing road safety priorities. Although most people will agree on the overarching objective of reducing death and injury, quality of life, danger reduction, and associated policy objectives must be part of the vision. Bold measures will only gain widespread support if the broader issues are addressed.

135. Road safety is not a morally-neutral area. Issues inevitably arise regarding how far it is right for the state to restrict personal freedom - including the 'right to drive' - in order to reduce death and injury. Our witnesses were clear that a degree of risk-taking is inevitable and even desirable and that some level of injury is bound to result. Even the Swedish Vision Zero does not attempt to eliminate all deaths where individuals deliberately put themselves at risk. We agree with our witness who said we should not have the right to put other people lives at risk by the way we exercise our freedom.[150] We feel that the Government's main duty should be to try to protect road users from risks imposed by others and then to protect road users from the worst consequences of their own mistakes.

136. A new vision is needed for road safety in Britain beyond 2010. This should be underpinned by a strategy that explains how casualty reduction, danger reduction and the various other important policy objectives, such as a sustainable transport system, economic efficiency, climate change, social inclusion and physical health are integrated. Priorities must also be clarified. Widespread consultation is needed that takes in the complexities of the issues.

137. There is general agreement that the national targets have helped at a strategic level to focus resources and efforts on casualty reduction. There is also support for adopting challenging new targets beyond 2010. Because of the divergence in trends of deaths and injuries, there is support for having a target for reducing deaths that is separate from any target for reducing injuries.

138. Support for simple casualty reduction targets is not universal. Living Streets contends that "an obsession with targets for casualty reduction has contributed to pedestrians being designed out of the urban environment."[151] The CTC reported that although the Department for Transport was promoting casualty reduction and cycle use, some local authorities have interpreted the road safety target as a reason not to encourage cycling.[152]

139. Other witnesses pointed out that casualty reduction targets that do not take account of levels of exposure (use) can mask important trends.[153] This is not necessarily an argument for not having casualty reduction targets but one that shows the need to pursue multiple objectives and better monitoring. Dr Christie, and groups representing vulnerable road users (including motorcyclists) stressed the importance of monitoring casualty rates - deaths and injuries relative to the amount of distance travelled or hours of 'exposure'.[154] This is difficult to achieve accurately at local level but is more reliable at national level.

140. The Government should adopt a national target for reducing deaths, which is separate from any targets for reducing serious or slight injuries. The Government should also adopt a national target for reducing deaths and serious injuries. This combined target should also be applied at local level where performance monitoring should take account of the inevitable fluctuations in casualties from year to year.

141. It is essential that, at both national and local level, casualty reduction targets are seen in the context of promoting sustainable transport.

142. It is not for us to specify the level of casualty reductions to be targeted. These will need to be based on technical analysis of options, resources and trends, and may be adjusted at local level. As an ambition, however, we believe that the Government should be setting the bar high, perhaps as follows:

Reduce deaths below 2,000 by 2020; and below 1,000 by 2030.
Reduce deaths and serious injuries below 20,000 by 2020 and below 10,000 by 2030.

143. These suggested reductions are in line with the targets set in the 2000 strategy. They are also broadly consistent with the 'pragmatic' vision recommended by PACTS whereby road risk should be reduced to not more than twice that experienced elsewhere in everyday life.[155]

144. The IAM Motoring Trust recommends a long-term target of 20-25 years with intermediate 5-year targets and reviews. It states that

Experience of the past two target rounds suggests that 10-year target periods may not be the most effective approach. Most elements of both casualty reduction targets have been met within the determined period, leaving a sense of hiatus until new targets are set.[156]

145. We feel the suggestion of a long term target of 20-25 years, with intermediate 5-year targets and reviews, is something that the Government should consider carefully in arriving at new targets.

146. There is less agreement about exactly how or which national targets should be applied at local level. The Institute of Highway Incorporated Engineers (IHIE) points to local authority 'target fatigue' and stresses the need to 're-engage' the public.[157] The Audit Commission, TRL, the CSS and Scottish road safety professionals pointed out that annual targets were not always meaningful at local level because of the fluctuations in casualty numbers and the small number of casualties in some local authority areas.[158]

147. There should be flexibility for local authorities and Local Area Agreements to set their own additional local road safety targets, to suit local priorities and needs. These might include indicators other than casualties. Whilst reducing deaths must be an overriding priority, deaths are not necessarily a meaningful indicator of performance or priorities at the local level where the numbers will be small. Reducing casualties in the most deprived areas may be a priority in some local authority areas.

Improved data and monitoring

148. The Department for Transport has relied on a relatively narrow range of data to monitor road safety. Various organisations emphasise the need to monitor additional factors and from additional sources to give a more rounded picture. These might include the percentage of people obeying the speed limit, changes in the amounts of walking and cycling, the percentage of roads with 20-mph speed limits and the number of breath tests undertaken by the police. Some of these, such as breath tests, are means-to-an-end and not objectives in their own rights. As such, it is more appropriate to monitor them rather than to set additional targets for them. Some of these data are available elsewhere but not brought together to provide a holistic picture of road safety.

149. With regard to the overarching issue of deaths and injuries, we agree with the recommendation in research commissioned by the Government that

This and other studies have shown that it is insufficient to rely solely on STATS19 data, or on any one data source for an assessment of trends in serious injury. That different databases show different parts of the picture is useful and it is recommended that greater use be made of all sources. A system of data triangulation should be used to compare and understand trends in road casualties.[159]

150. Greater independent monitoring and scrutiny of progress is required. Progress should be monitored against a range of indicators, not all of which need to be targets. This would include the British Road Safety Survey. The main casualty reduction targets must be monitored against both police and hospital data and overseen by the independent commission.

Road-safety professionals

151. Delivering a more ambitious, innovative and effective road safety strategy will require a range of professional skills. Witnesses pointed out that to train, recruit and retain people with the appropriate skills, secure, long-term funding was essential. Some skills are in short supply:

The CSS and IHIE identified a range of issues, including a lack of formal training and the need to reverse the decline in graduates entering the civil and highway engineering and planning professions from which many road safety professionals are drawn.[160]
Future roads and vehicles will include much more safety technology. This will require specialists who understand intelligent transport systems.
The Police Federation pointed to the reduction in dedicated roads policing officers.[161]
Due to fluctuations in funding levels and priorities, there are also difficulties in staffing the expanded programme of child pedestrian training.[162]

152. Communication and consultation skills are also much needed. These include the skills to engage with local people. As Mr Thornton of the West Yorkshire Road Safety Strategy Group stated:

I do not think we have engaged enough with local communities and roads users as a whole. We are still trying to say that professionals deliver road safety and virtually exclude the influence that people can have on their own safety and the safety of people they come into contact with. It is really important to say that local people deliver road safety as much as we do.[163]

153. Mr Lynam and others emphasised that simply continuing with current policies would be inadequate and that new measures and lateral thinking were required.[164] This is likely to require people from outside the traditional road safety professions.

154. Consistent and adequate long-term funding is required in order to attract and retain the calibre of road safety professional that is required to deliver the road safety strategy.

155. It is evident that the context is different for safety professionals in different transport modes. Whilst some differences are inevitable, there are opportunities for greater exchange of ideas and expertise across transport sectors.

156. The approach taken to investigating accidents differs sharply across the transport modes and there is insufficient cross-over between road and the other modes. The systems approach that is routine in marine, rail and aviation accident investigation and prevention is much less apparent in road safety. The Government should facilitate greater exchange of personnel, ideas and learning across the modes.

157. The Government should establish a road accident investigation branch, to parallel those for aviation, marine and rail. Its purpose would be to draw together lessons from the fatal accident investigations undertaken by police and other sources.

144 Ev 297 Back

145 On 26 March 2008 - see Ev 94. Back

146 Qq 358, 360 Back

147 Q 313 Back

148 Q 155 [Mrs Berry] Back

149 A Forum for Preventing Deaths in Custody was established in 2006, following a recommendation by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Back

150 Q 159 [Mr Clinton] Back

151 Ev 176 Back

152 Ev 179, 184 Back

153 Ev 232 Back

154 Ev 310 Back

155 PACTS, op.cit. Back