Conclusions and recommendations
Progress towards the 2010 targets
1. 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. (Paragraph 15)
2. We urge the Government to renew its focus on tackling the appalling level of child road traffic deaths associated with deprivation.
(Paragraph 20)
3. 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.
(Paragraph 31)
4. 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.
(Paragraph 34)
Priorities beyond 2010
5. The systems approach to road safety, now adopted by the Netherlands, Sweden and elsewhere is different to that pursued by the UK. We believe that it is time for the UK to move towards this more fundamental approach which is accepted for other transport modes. The Department for Transport needs to explore this approach further and to engage the public in a discussion of the ideas and implications.
(Paragraph 51)
6. The emphasis needs to shift from treating localised problems to one of long-term improvements to the safety of the infrastructure. At the same time, it is essential that a multi-disciplinary approach is taken to ensure that safety measures are compatible with a good quality local environment.
(Paragraph 57)
7. Ways must be found to satisfy the desires of local communities for safer streets. We recommend that local authorities be given the powers and resources to introduce 20-mph limits much more widely. Flexibility is required to avoid the prohibitive costs associated with some approaches. The balance of engineering measures, technology, policing and community influence should be a local matter. Systems, however, must not rely on high levels of fines or draconian enforcement.
(Paragraph 60)
8. The Government should take a more proactive approach to determining the safety benefits of new vehicle technologies. It should make clear which ones it believes have most safety benefits and encourage their adoption into the UK vehicle fleet. The Government should use the various tools at its disposal, including fiscal and financial incentives, to encourage employers to use vehicles with additional proven safety features. Government departments and agencies should also give a lead in their fleet purchasing decisions. This would help to reduce work-related casualties and speed up the adoption of these features into the wider UK vehicle fleet.
(Paragraph 66)
9. There are clear links between uninsured and unlicensed driving, and crash involvement. A twin-track approach is needed. The Government should encourage greater partnership working at local level to prevent offending by young people. At the same time, greater levels of enforcement are needed to prevent uninsured and unlicensed driving. The Committee recommends the Department for Transport identify projects of this type that have been successful and disseminate these more widely.
(Paragraph 71)
10. We support the Government's efforts to revise the driver training system and to place greater emphasis on attitudes and behaviours as well as driving skills. The proposals in Learning to Drive are steps in the right direction, but we are not confident that they will be sufficient to arrest the carnage of young drivers on our roads. We recommend that the Government takes bolder and more urgent steps to cut the number of collisions involving young drivers, particularly young men. We urge that it reconsiders its response to our recommendations in Novice Drivers regarding a graduated licensing scheme and, in particular (p36), restrictions on young drivers carrying teenage passengers between the hours of 11pm and 5am.
(Paragraph 75)
11. More link-up is needed between the various road safety education programmes. It is disappointing that, in a relatively wide-ranging review of driver training, the Government has not consulted on the possibility of strengthening links between driver training, and pedestrian and cyclist training in the ways that some local authorities are doing. We recommend that the Department for Transport and the Department for Children, Schools and Families consider ways in which a range of road-user training schemes might be targeted at school students of the appropriate ages.
(Paragraph 77)
12. 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.
(Paragraph 81)
13. 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.
(Paragraph 82)
14. It is unsatisfactory that so few children are given pedestrian or cycle training at school. Whereas there is a plethora of statistics on school-related matters, the percentage of children receiving road safety training is not monitored. We welcome the Department for Transport's support for Kerbcraft and, more recently, for Bikeability training. However, the Government should frame its targets in terms of the percentage, rather than the absolute number, of children in the target age group to be trained. The timescales for implementing these schemes must be reduced; and they should be properly monitored and supported with long-term resources to ensure that they are available to all children. We recommend that the Government investigates the effects that the compulsory wearing of cycle helmets by children would have on casualties.
(Paragraph 89)
15. We note that there is a wealth of educational materials aimed at pre-school and primary age youngsters. However, we are concerned that similar efforts have not been made to produce material for pupils in secondary school. We believe that there needs to be a more co-ordinated approach to the provision of such materials and a consolidated approach to risk education across the age range.
(Paragraph 91)
16. Elsewhere in this Report, we have identified the apparent mismatch between data sets in terms of the number of actual casualties compared with those recorded. We believe that it is important for local highway authorities to have as accurate a picture as possible of the number of people killed or injured in their area and of the costs of preventing these injuries. We encourage these authorities to gather and publish such information in addition to the STATS19 data.
(Paragraph 95)
17. We recommend that cycle training should be offered as an alternative to fines for offending cyclists, just as driver retraining courses are now commonly offered to motorists who commit minor traffic offences.
(Paragraph 96)
18. We recognise the vulnerability of older drivers and their increasing numbers. We do not believe that automatic, mandatory retesting of drivers above a certain age is justified. We favour the more positive approach of simplifying the driving task and protecting drivers from the more serious consequences of their errors. Making walking and public transport more attractive to older people, with initiatives such as 20-mph limits and accessible vehicles, should also be encouraged. Schemes to provide assistance to older drivers are also to be encouraged.
(Paragraph 101)
19. We recommend that the Government urgently review the increasing use and safety of mobility scooters with a view to establishing whether safety guidelines or mandatory training would be beneficial.
(Paragraph 104)
20. The Government should work with employers' organisations and trades unions on the issue of work-related road accidents, including an evaluation of its Driving for Better Business initiative. It should use the tools at its disposal, including fiscal and financial incentives, to encourage employers to use vehicles with additional proven safety features. This would help to reduce work-related casualties and speed the adoption of these features into the wider UK vehicle fleet.
(Paragraph 109)
21. It is anomalous that the vast majority of work-related deaths are not examined by the Health and Safety Executive, purely because they occur on the roads. The Government should review the role of the Health and Safety Executive with regard to road safety to ensure that it fulfils its unique role in the strategy beyond 2010.
(Paragraph 110)
22. We understand that the Department is to shortly consult on proposals to address the problem of drink-drive collisions. As in our report on Novice Drivers, we welcome this much-needed investigation and look forward to a thorough examination of what should be the permitted blood alcohol concentration for drivers. Should our recommendation for a lower alcohol limit for novice drivers be implemented, this would provide further useful evidence on the impact of a lower alcohol limit for drivers in general.
(Paragraph 118)
23. It is unacceptable that such a major element of the Government's road safety strategy can be given such a low priority by a key department. It is imperative that the Home Office gives much higher priority to enforcement of drink-drive and drug-drive offences. This should include the type-approval of roadside evidential breath-testing devices and development of equipment to assist the police to identify and prosecute drug-impaired drivers.
(Paragraph 119)
24. The connections between unlicensed, untaxed or uninsured vehicles, crime and anti-social behaviour, and road safety need to be more widely acted upon. We welcome the recent increase in enforcement activity by VOSA. This must be continued and consistently applied in all areas. The lack of congruity between the priorities of the Home Office and the Department for Transport on road safety continues to be of great concern to us.
(Paragraph 124)
Delivery
25. 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.
(Paragraph 129)
26. 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.
(Paragraph 132)
27. 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.
(Paragraph 136)
28. 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.
(Paragraph 140)
29. It is essential that, at both national and local level, casualty reduction targets are seen in the context of promoting sustainable transport.
(Paragraph 141)
30. 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.
(Paragraph 145)
31. 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.
(Paragraph 147)
32. 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.
(Paragraph 150)
33. 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.
(Paragraph 154)
34. 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.
(Paragraph 156)
35. 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.
(Paragraph 157)
| 
