Memorandum from RoadPeace (RS 23)
RoadPeace is Britain's national charity for
road traffic victims. It was established in 1992 in response to
the overwhelming need for a national organisation to support bereaved
families and injured victims of road crashes, and to draw attention
to their lack of rights, the disregard of their needs and the
casual attitudes taken towards them. Another founding aim was
to campaign for road danger reduction, which is a wider objective
than reducing road deaths and injuries.
1. To what extent have targets for casualty
reduction been a useful tool for focusing professional activity?
1.1 While casualty reduction targets, which
in effect measure the extent of failure, have their place, we
believe there should also be other, more proactive targets, including
the reduction of speeding, and a reduction in motor vehicle (car
and motorcycle) trips, the latter called for by the Royal Commission
on Environmental Pollution.
1.2 The basis for future targets should
be better publicised, especially among transport and motoring
correspondents. Speed cameras should not have been held responsible
for the lack of progress in the reduction of road deaths, when
road safety engineering and vehicles safety improvements were
expected to have the lead roles in reducing road deaths and serious
injuries.
1.3 Future targets should include reducing
the death/serious injury risk differential between vulnerable/active
road users and motor vehicle occupants in urban areas.
1.4 Future casualty targets should be based
on hospital casualties, as in Sweden and Netherlands, since there
is a discrepancy between police and hospital statistics.
1.5 There is an underspend in road safety
and much more investment in safety measures could be justified
according to the Treasury cost benefit guidelines. The reduction
of this underspend would be a very useful target.
1.6 We believe that fear there has been
too much focus on those cohorts that are over-represented in road
death statistics (young drivers and motorcyclists) and not enough
on what measures would have the greatest benefit for the largest
number of road users. Vehicle speed limiters, for example, would
help all road users.
2. What further measures need to be adopted
to reduce deaths and injuries arising from drinking and driving?
2.1 Key measures that are needed include the:
— reduction of the drink drive limit
to 50 mg in line with European countries with a major publicity
and enforcement campaign;
— many more breath tests conducted
and on a randomised basis;
— lifetime bans for drink drivers who
kill;
— DVLA driving license suspensions
for drink drivers until they come to court;
— a drink driving charge which mentions
serious injury and which carries a maximum prison sentence of
five years or more;
— drink drivers to pay for breathalyser
test;
— insurance companies encouraged to
sue drink drivers to recover costs;
— vehicle confiscation; and
— drink drive victims to qualify for
criminal injuries compensation.
2.2 But whatever is introduced, care should
be taken not to widen the penalty gap with speeding drivers who
are sober as these kill and seriously injury at least twice as
many as do drink drivers. We do not agree with the recent RAC
Motoring Report recommendations to increase the penalties for
drink and drug driving but not for speeding.
3. How does Great Britain compare with other
EU countries in its approach to reducing deaths and injuries?
Excessive and inappropriate speed is the number
one road safety problem in European countries and deserves a special
focus . . . Speeding is the cause of about one-third of fatal
accidents and an aggravating factor in all accidents . . . Managing
speeding is therefore the most important measure to reduce death
and injury on our roads. European Transport Safety Council
(ETSC), 2007.
3.1 Recent ETSC reports have highlighted
the tough approaches taken against speeding drivers in other countries.
In the Netherlands, the number of speeding tickets issued last
year exceeded the number of drivers. On a per driver basis, they
issued 40 times more speeding tickets than did the UK. They have
also reduced their tolerance level down to 2.5-6 mph above the
limit. (The Independent, 15/12/07, "Dutch speeding
tickets soar"). Sweden has also reduced their tolerance limit
and in Norway, drivers are fined according to the income, with
drivers being fined over £20,000 for speeding.
3.2 The ETSC has also highlighted how many
more breathalyser tests are conducted in other EU countries.
3.3 In Sweden and other Scandinavian countries,
it is widely accepted that road user error should not, wherever
possible, be the cause of death or serious injury. The Swedes
promote the development of an error-tolerant, or forgiving, road
system. In the UK, whilst we mitigate against the possibility
of road user error by the use of seat belts, air bags and other
passive safety devices within the vehicle, we do much less on
our road network to design out the likelihood of injury or death
resulting from driver error, other than the use of Crash barrier
(itself a known hazard to vehicle occupants and motor cyclists).
As almost a fifth of fatalities in the UK result from a collision
with roadside objects such as trees, lighting columns sign posts
and even crash barrier, the promotion of forgiving road design
could lead to a significant reduction in the numbers of killed
and seriously injured on UK Roads. Whilst the UK Highways Agency
have published some advice for the Trunk Road network on this
subject, passive design has not been readily adopted on those
roads where it is most needed ie the local road network of dual
carriageway and single carriageway roads. Recent publication of
EN12767:2007 and its associated UK Annexe could enable much greater
use of passive design on local roads, but it is left to individual
authorities to assess need, unlike Sweden, where a law has been
passed by Parliament requiring the use of passive road design.
3.4 Other countries involve the health sector
much more while our current RS strategy does not even include
a chapter on emergency medical services or mention of rehabilitation.
4. How do approaches in reductions in risk
on the roads compare to those adopted in other modes of transport?
4.1 We tolerate motor vehicle speeds 5 miles
and more over the speed limit. In urban areas, this means that
vulnerable road users have a 50 50 chance of dying if they are
hit by a car. Such a risk would never be tolerated for other modes
of transport.
4.2 With other transport modes, we are much
tougher on drink driving with random breath testing of operators
and drivers. We are also much tougher on red light running by
train drivers. Signals passed at danger (SPAD) on the rail way
are considered much more serious and much more money is spent
in preventing their occurrence.
4.3 In other areas, including in the area
of crime, we look at designing out risk, but with road danger,
the victim centred (blaming) approach is still preferred by many,
including government and local authority departments responsible
for road safety.
5. Are there specific blockages caused by
shortages of appropriately trained and skilled staff?
5.1 The shortage of road safety staff in
local authorities was highlighted several years back by PACTS
and we are unaware of any major improvements in the situation.
5.2 Training should also include statistics,
evaluation methods, and a review of the evidence for road safety
measures. The Audit Commission's Changing Lanes report demonstrates
this gap. It included various one-off examples but no systematic
evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of different road safety
measures.
5.3 We also believe there is a need for
including more on the risk and consequences of speeding in the
training for road safety officers, police, CPS, magistrate, and
judge training. We believe thatspeeding is more important than
all other factors.
5.4 Collision investigation for fatal crashes
is being improved but we are concerned that many injury collisions,
including serious injury crashes, are not investigated properly.
Much more training in collision investigation is needed to ensure
lessons are learned and bad driving that injures is prosecuted
accordingly.
6. What further policies, not already widely
used, might be considered for adoption and what evidence there
is for their success?
6.1 The Law changes
(a) Law changes: We still believe the prosecution
for road death should be on a par with the prosecution for manslaughter.
CPS guidelines should re-classify many offences at present considered
as careless driving to dangerous. We also believe that those driving
offences which lead to a failure of the driving test should be
classified as dangerous driving in the CPS charging standards.
(b) The law needs to deal more seriously with
causing serious injury by driving. There is no charge at present
that mentions serious injuries caused by dangerous, careless or
drink driving. Dangerous driving that injures someone is restricted
to a maximum of two years imprisonment while dangerous driving
that kills has a maximum of 14 years imprisonment.
(c) Strict driver liability. We believe the duty
of care should lie with the party posing the greater risk. This
only affects civil compensation, not criminal prosecution, and
we believe such an approach would lead to greater interest by
the insurance industry in tackling speeding.
6.2 Road danger reduction approach
(a) A road danger reduction approach needs to
be taken rather than focussing on casualty figures. The approach
should be to reduce danger from motor vehicles by reducing speed
and volume of motor traffic, rather than educational programmes
or road engineering focussed on potential victims.
(b) Policies to increase walking and cycling
will lead to greater safety for these modes. A 20 mph urban default
speed limit—the TRL report concluded that 20 mph areas reduced
K/SI crashes by 56% while the Health Development Agency reported
that a 20 mph default limit in residential roads would reduce
child pedestrian casualties by two-thirds.
(c) A 60 mph speed limit on motorways and dual
carriageways—this was identified as a quick win by the UK
Energy Research Centre.
(d) Road engineering that prioritises vulnerable
road users, and reduces risks for them. This is not the same as
EuroRAP which is now focused on secondary safety measures only.
6.3 Vehicle technology
(a) ISA—this has been in the pipeline for
years. Trials show that mandatory speed limiters on vehicles would
prevent over half of all deaths. No other safety measure is equally
effective but still we allow vehicles to be designed and operated
at speeds vastly in excess of the speed limit.
(b) Black boxes. We believe these are needed
for improving collision investigation and the determination of
culpability. They have also been shown to lead to reduced mileage.
(c) Lorries should be required to be fitted with
proximity mirrors and cycle sensors, at least before they are
allowed to operate in urban areas.
(d) Eco driving needs to be more linked with
road safety. This is a missed opportunity as both smoother and
lower speeds are needed.
6.4 Improved collision investigation
(a) National Road Collision Investigation Centre
where data could be collated and lessons learned to reduce risk.
(b) Mandatory drug testing after a fatal crash.
It has been over ten years since ACPO adopted the policy of breathalysing
surviving drivers in fatal crashes and this same approach should
be extended to drug testing. Despite the public and many professionals
thinking this is a leading problem, we have very limited evidence
on the extent to which drug driving is involved in crashes, including
fatal crashes.
6.5 More effective tackling of driving offences
(a) Training for CPS, magistrates and judges.
Just as there is for sexual violence, there should be specialised
training for prosecutors and judges to ensure they are properly
informed of the risks related to driving behaviours.
(b) Vehicle confiscation for other offences.
If vehicles can be confiscated from uninsured drivers, then this
should also be possible for drivers who are speeding or are under
the influence of drink or drugs.
(c) Driving bans for offenders. Disqualifications
should be possible for gross speeding and we also support a DVLA
rule change whereby drivers in injury/fatal crashes who fail breathtests
are banned from driving immediately. At present they are allowed
to continue driving until the court trial with very few of them
banned from driving as a bail condition.
(d) Camera fines. We argued in our response to
the 2003 Transport Committee Inquiry on Speed that camera fines
should be invested in rehabilitation programmes and support services
for crash victims, to remind motorists of the devastation caused
by speeding. We understand camera fines are no longer hypothecated
but believe this is still needed and would help change the public
attitude towards speeding.
(d) The evidence for existing policies needs
to be reviewed, not just for new proposals. We believe the evidence
exists for banning hands free mobile phones.
6.6 Government policy
(a) A road safety spending review should be undertaken—the
last one was conducted in 1996 and a call by the Labour government
for a new one is long overdue. This review should include the
cost spent by the police and the hospitals, both which were included
in the previous review.
(b) The term accident should be banned by the
DfT, if not all government, in relation to road crashes. This
has been called for by RoadPeace and others for over 15 years
and the BMJ banned it over seven years ago. The CPS have also
recently announced their policy not to use it. The DfT should
show good practice in changing behaviour patterns.
7. What should be the priorities for government
in considering further targets for casualty reduction beyond 2010?
7.1 A road danger reduction approach should
be adopted as this would include the impact on both the environment
and public health/obesity, as well as on road casualties. Targets
would include:
— Average and max motor speeds on urban
roads and particularly residential areas.
— Increases in walking and cycling
(differentiated for vulnerable groups—children, disabled
and elderly people).
— Reduction in motor traffic.
— Perceptions by people of danger from
streets.
7.2 This has been the call from road danger
reduction campaigners for over 15 years and is needed even more
now than before with the threats posed by these two twin catastrophes
looming. This should result in a situation where speeding will
be treated as seriously by the justice sector as drink driving.
7.3 We participated in PACTS' Beyond 2010
seminars last October and provided follow-up comments in which
we stressed the need to focus more on speeding. We noted the following:
Cyclists and parents are not scared of drink
driving—which was listed as a challenge, nor will drug driving
aggravate climate change. Speeding kills both people and planet
and deserves much greater priority than has been given.
The key issue for all programmes and plans should
be tackling climate change and this will require a much tougher
approach to speeding. We think the next road safety plan should
be `climate proofed' to ensure it reduces carbon emissions from
transport. Every action should be checked to see its impact on
carbon emissions. For instance, any driver education in schools
must include lessons on the costs of motoring, both financial
and environmental.
The Think campaign needs to better reflect the
real word and the continuing speed debate. Please do compare the
financial resources, campaign time dedicated to the various risk
factors and see how speeding is overlooked. DfT promotes not drinking
any alcohol when driving-which actually goes beyond the law, so
why do they also not ask drivers to never exceed speed limit—which
is only obeying the existing law. DfT's previous policy on speeding
left them in a hole—speeding was only to be tackled after
it had already contributed to repeated death and injury, which
implied speeding was okay in locations where casualties had yet
to occur. A much bolder approach is needed, as was adopted with
drink driving, racism, domestic violence, etc. Many people say
that speeding needs to be made as anti-social as drink driving
but they have forgotten what a tough admirable stance on drink
driving was taken—DfT needs to be equally brave now.
February 2008
| 
