Supplementary memorandum from the Department
for Transport (RS 01C)
It might be helpful if I clarified a few matters
further to the Select Committee's Hearing on road safety on 21
May.
Clive Efford asked about the effectiveness of
introducing 20 mph speed limits where there were no supporting
engineering measures. My recollection—that introducing such
limits without engineering measures had the effect only of reducing
average speeds by 1 mph—is borne out by the research. A
1998 report by TRL (TRL 363, Urban Speed Management Methods)
looking at this subject contains this finding.
Mr Efford also asked about vehicle technologies
that would advance road safety. Electronic stability control (ESC)
is now fitted as standard in some upmarket vehicles. DfT research
has shown that ESC equipped vehicles are involved in 25% fewer
fatal accidents; it is particularly helpful in reducing accidents
which involve the vehicle skidding or overturning. We are working
to bring in international regulations that will make this technology
mandatory for all new cars and larger vehicles and are also taking
steps to encourage voluntary uptake in the short term.
David Clelland asked about the obligation upon
doctors to notify DVLA in a case where they consider a patient
medically unfit to drive. Whilst there is no legal obligation
on doctors to notify DVLA, they do have a duty of care, not only
to their patient but also to the general public. On this basis,
doctors do have an obligation to report to DVLA instances where
they consider a patient unfit to drive. The General Medical Council
has issued guidelines to the effect that doctors should inform
DVLA about unfit patients who they have advised should notify
DVLA but who, for whatever reason, have failed to act on that
advice.
John Leech asked whether our motorcycle Safety
Helmet Assessment and Rating Programme (SHARP) tests take in open
faced helmets. The SHARP tests and assessments are valid for all
types of helmet. We have started with full-face helmets as these
represent the largest part of the market (approximately 80%).
Our original intention was to complete ratings for all full face
helmets before moving on to open face and "flip-front"/system
type helmets. However, since our initial market review, it seems
the popularity of `flip-front' helmets is growing (approximately
10%) and we are reviewing our original timetable with a view to
assessing them this summer. We intend to move on to consider open
face helmets, but it is unlikely that this will be before 2009.
Philip Hollobone also asked about safety and
the plans to develop the area around the A14 in Kettering. Whilst
any accident is a matter of concern, the A14 around Kettering
does not have a very bad accident record. The relevant DfT Circular
(2/2007, Planning and the Strategic Roads Network) confirms
that "The Agency will continue to treat safety on the network
as a paramount concern". Proposals for development of the
A14 are at a very early stage.
In reply to Philip Hollobone's question on the
impact of foreign drivers on road safety, I did my best to recall
some details of the Government's investment in the Vehicle and
Operator Services Agency (VOSA) enforcement work. The additional
investment in VOSA resources is £24 million over the next
three years, which will provide 97 extra staff. This will enable
VOSA to check an additional 30,000 vehicles each year. In that
same exchange, I also mentioned our studies on a potential vignette
scheme within the UK for hauliers on international journeys from
other EU countries. Our studies concluded that a vignette would
not deliver the enforcement benefits that the sponsors thought
it might and so we have no plans to introduce a vignette.
Eric Martlew asked about the current level of
cycle training for children. Estimates are that Local Authorities
fund some form of cycle training for around 200,000 children a
year. The Department announced in March that we would be making
funding available to Local Authorities to train nearly 80,000
schoolchildren to the Bikeability standard in 2008-09, in addition
to the 46,000 children for whom we have already funded training
via local authorities and School Sports Partnerships. We aim to
provide training for a total of 500,000 children by 2012.
David Clelland asked about mobility scooters.
We do not currently believe that mobility scooters have a significant
impact upon road safety. However, there is expected to be an increase
in the number of mobility scooter users in the future, in line
with changes in UK age and obesity demographics. For this reason,
the Department for Transport is monitoring its policy on mobility
scooters including future fitness to drive, insurance, registration
and training requirements.
John Leech asked about the Dutch Government's
funding of local 20 mph zones.
We have asked Dutch Government contacts for
advice on this point and will pass on the details when we have
them.
The Committee also asked about drug-testing
equipment. The Forensic Science Service, as advisers to the Home
Office, is developing a specification for a drug-screening device.
Once this specification is issued, potential test devices will
be checked for compliance with it. The Home Office Scientific
Development Branch is, in the longer term, working to develop
a device that will analyse specimens for the presence of drugs
generally, and identify these, rather than screen for the presence
of specific drugs. We cannot at the moment say when equipment
will be made available and in use.
The drug testing equipment currently available
is not approved for road traffic purposes. It is used for other
purposes in dealing with suspected drug misuse. It is not used
for evidential purposes and we would need to change the law, following
type approval, to make it an offence to drive with a specified
drug in the body.
Independent advice is that the drug screeners
currently available are not suitable for approval. There are a
number of reasons for this. The main one from the police point
of view is that they would not always detect specific drugs, so
a person who was in fact drug-impaired might be allowed to go
on driving. The fact that a device is used for other purposes
here or for drug driving enforcement in other countries with different
operational and legal situations does not mean it is suitable
for safety-related criminal law enforcement here. Type approval
orders are, for the reasons set out above, still some way off.
Lastly, you mentioned a Departmental seminar
on transport safety on 14 May and suggested that it was odd that
road safety did not feature. In fact, the seminar was about accident
investigation and those organisations speaking were the three
Accident Investigation Branches—for rail, air and maritime.
Whilst road safety did not feature in the seminar, officials concerned
with road safety did attend, as we try to use the experience of
other modes to reduce road casualties.
June 2008
| 
