House of Commons - Transport - Written Evidence

Select Committee on Transport Written Evidence

Memorandum from CTC (RS 26)

INTRODUCTION

1. CTC, the national cyclists' organisation, was founded in 1878. CTC has 70,000 members and supporters, provides a range of information and legal services to cyclists, organises cycling events, and represents the interests of cyclists and cycling on issues of public policy. We welcome the opportunity to respond to this inquiry.

2. We welcome many of the proposals put forward in the PACTS report, Beyond 2010, particularly the links it draws between road safety policy and the twin crises of obesity and climate change. Although the Government is proud of its overall record on road safety, Britain is still a poor performer compared with our European neighbours on the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and children (see paragraph 9). Road safety's most important contribution towards health and sustainability objectives surely lies in improving the safety of these particular groups. Hence it is particularly regrettable that the paragraphs on road safety in "Towards a Sustainable Transport System" (the Government's response to the Eddington and Stern Reviews)[40] fail to mention walking and cycling at all.

3. Our proposals echo many of those in the PACTS report, notably its call for 20 mph to be the default speed limit for urban streets.[41] We also advocate reduced speeds on rural roads, addressing attitudes towards and training amongst cyclists and drivers, traffic law and enforcement, promotion of cycling, cycle friendly infrastructure and safer vehicles.

4. A key principle underlying our response is the strong (and growing) pool of academic and empirical evidence that cyclists gain from "safety in numbers"—ie the more people who cycle, the safer it becomes (NB the same goes also for pedestrians). Evidence suggests that a doubling of cycling would only lead to a 32% increase in casualties[42] and hence a significant overall improvement in cyclists' safety (the Government has acknowledged this in recent guidance on the appraisal of walking and cycling schemes).[43] Cyclists also impose very little danger on other road users (see paragraph 36). Hence increased cycle use has wider benefits for the safety of all road users, not to mention its wider benefits in tackling congestion and promoting social inclusion, health and sustainability.

To what extent have targets for casualty reduction been a useful tool for focusing professional activity?

5. Current targets for casualty reduction have not helped vulnerable road users and in some areas have been very damaging. The decision to adopt absolute numbers rather than rate-based figures has led some local authorities to conclude that reducing cycle use would help them meet their targets (and vice versa), and hence to adopt policies which deter rather than encourage walking and cycling.

6. This approach manifests itself particularly in road safety awareness campaigns which use shock tactics to impress on people (particularly children) that cycling is "dangerous". This is unhelpful given that the Government itself acknowledge that cycling's health benefits alone far outweigh the risks involved,[44] and that you are in fact about as (un)likely to be killed in a mile of cycling as a mile of walking.[45] Such campaigns may even be counter-productive to cyclists' safety—deterring people from cycling (or allowing their children to cycle) risks undermining their "safety in numbers" benefits. Since its much criticised (and initially factually inaccurate) "Cyclesense" campaign,[46] the Department for Transport has rightly desisted from such initiatives. However examples are still widespread at the local level.[47], [48]

7. Targets for casualty reduction have also led to risk-averse behaviours amongst road safety professionals and a systematic failure to adopt innovative approaches to road safety on a wider basis, such as the principles of "shared space."[49]

What further measures need to be adopted to reduce deaths and injuries arising from drinking and driving?

8. The blood alcohol limit must be reduced to 50 mg for most drivers and to zero for novice drivers. The UK has the one of the highest blood alcohol limits in Europe—just 5 out of 27 EU countries have a limit equal to or above that in the UK; eight countries have limits half or below that of the UK.[50] Reducing the blood alcohol limit to 50 mg could save 65 lives a year.[51]

How does Great Britain compare with other EU countries in its approach to reducing deaths and injuries?

9. Although Britain's road safety record is in overall terms better than most EU countries, the picture is much more mixed when it comes to vulnerable road users. The UK has the highest proportion of pedestrian casualties of any of its EU peer countries but the third lowest level of walking.[52] In terms of cycle safety Britain also performs poorly compared with other European countries. Britain's casualty rate of 36 cyclist deaths per billion kms travelled is three times worse than in the Netherlands, where 27% of journeys are made by cycle.[53]

How do approaches in reductions in risk on the roads compare to those adopted in other modes of transport?

10. Reductions in road casualties over the last few decades have been proportionately lower than those amongst other modes of travel. An equivalent to the RAIB or AAIB is sorely needed to provide expert investigation into road collisions and "near misses".

11. Whereas "Signals Passed at Danger" and "near-misses" are thoroughly investigated and their frequency monitored on the railways and in the air, "close shaves" on the road are ignored by police when brought to their attention. CTC members often tell us of the difficulty of persuading the police to take reports or witness statements of dangerous incidents, even in cases where serious injuries have occurred. This not only undermines legal actions against dangerous drivers, but also deprives road safety officers of the data they need to carry out their duties to investigate and minimise reported sources of danger.

Are there specific blockages caused by shortages of appropriately trained and skilled staff?

12. Part of the explanation for the above problem is the shortage of police officers trained to investigate road collisions. This in turn is a consequence of road traffic policing having been under-prioritised for many years by the Home Office.

13. There is also a need for traffic engineers to be better trained in the planning and design of "cycle-friendly infrastructure". Despite government guidance on this subject being available since 1996 and a revision in draft form since 2004,[54] street and junction layouts are often extremely cycle-hostile, and even the facilities ostensibly provided for cyclists are generally very poorly designed, often to the point of being positively dangerous. Councils should be encouraged to adopt Cycle Audit and Cycle Review procedures, not only because they can lead to more cycle-friendly design solutions but also because they effectively provide engineers with "on the job training" in how to "think bike" when planning or designing highway and traffic management schemes. "Cycle-friendly infrastructure" is discussed further in paragraphs 28-30 below.

What further policies, not already widely used, might be considered for adoption and what evidence there is for their success?

20 mph urban speed limit

14. We wholeheartedly endorse the recommendation by PACTS of making 20 mph the default speed limit in urban areas.[55] Experience from Hull, and elsewhere in continental Europe (eg in Hilden, Germany and in Graz, Austria where 30 kmh speed limits cover 76% of the road network) show that 20 mph speed limits have clear road safety benefits, particularly for non-motorised road users and children.[56], [57], [58]

15. The Commission for Integrated Transport has found that lower speed limits have wider benefits beyond road safety. They found that cities which apply 30 kmh limits extensively (typically between 65% and 85% of the road network) are "transformed . . . from being noisy, polluted places into vibrant, people-centred environments as well as facilitating the widespread re-allocation of street space to PT, cycling and walking to meet increased demand".[59]

16. To facilitate the long-term goal of achieving the 20 mph default urban speed limit and ensure public acceptance we believe that greater flexibility must be given to local authorities to implement widespread 20 mph limits such as those in Portsmouth. The expanded programme of Cycle Demonstration Towns, which forms part of Cycling England's recently announced new funding programme, could provide a valuable opportunity to pilot the use of "default" 20 mph limits, providing both evidence and experience which can be used to build support for rolling out this measure more widely.

17. The Home Office should complete the long-awaited type-approval for time over distance cameras to enforce speed limits below 30 mph, thus reducing the need for expensive and often unpopular road humps and other engineering measures.

18. Greater use should be made of the innovative approaches to speed reduction advocated in the Government's generally excellent Manual for Streets (MfS), such as the removal of centre-lines and "shared space" street designs.[60] The scope of MfS should be extended from new-build residential developments to encompass all "streets" where "people" are more important than "traffic".

Reduced speeds on rural roads

19. A disproportionate number of deaths and serious injuries occur on rural roads. Whereas by 2006 built up roads have seen a 15% fall in fatalities over the 1994-98 average, non-built up roads have seen a fall of just 10%.[61] Speed limits on rural, unclassified roads must be reduced, with 40 mph default, reduced to 30 mph in villages being suitable. As above, enforcement by time over distance cameras is required.

Driver/cyclist training and attitudes

20. Despite publicity campaigns from Government and elsewhere, there remains a lack of awareness amongst drivers of the extent to which higher speeds increase the risk of killing someone. More drivers and would-be drivers need to be informed that the chance killing a pedestrian goes up by 5% for every extra 1 mph.[62] There is similar lack of awareness that using a mobile is as dangerous as exceeding the drink-drive limit,[63] and that this is as true for hands-free as for hand-held mobiles.[64] These messages should be central not only to driver awareness campaigns but also to the training of novice drivers. People are more likely to adhere to speed limits and other laws if they understand the reasoning behind them.

21. Bikeability is the Government's recently launched cycle training programme based on the National Standard for Cycle Training. The Government's recent funding allocation to Cycling England will enable a further 500,000 children to receive Bikeability training over the next three years.[65] However we believe that there is still scope to bring Bikeability training to all children, extend it to teenagers and adults of all ages. There is good evidence that it is highly effective in increasing cycle use and improving people's confidence about cycling (or allowing their children to do so).

22. There is less evidence however about whether cycle training improves the safety of cyclists—and such evidence as does exist predates the National Standard.[66] On the other hand, anecdotal evidence from police forces, driving instructors and others suggests that cycle trainees turn out to be better drivers, and pass their driving tests more easily. We also know that drivers who cycle have a much better understanding than non-cyclists of what constitutes safe and responsible cycling. Further research into the safety impacts of cycle training would therefore help identify its potential contribution to both cyclist and driver safety, and hence its possible role in either driver or pre-driver training programmes.

23. The Government should also consider the possible role of cycle training as a remedy for illegal or irresponsible cycling, in much the same way that speed awareness or driver retraining courses are offered to offending drivers. The justification for taking a similar approach with errant cyclists is if anything even stronger, given that many cycling offences are due to the cyclist not having acquired the confidence or training to be able to ride safely and legally on the roads in the first place.

Traffic law and enforcement

24. Although the Road Safety Act 2006 will shortly lead to the introduction of a new offence of causing death by careless driving, we remain concerned that the legal framework gives insufficient priority to the safety of vulnerable road users. The new offence does nothing to clarify the distinction between what is "careless" and "dangerous" driving, nor does it remove the vast discrepancies between the sentences available depending on whether a victim happens to die or "merely" to be maimed. Where both problems arise (ie where a victim is maimed by someone whose driving is judged "merely" to be careless), the courts will still have only derisory penalties available. We believe the Government needs to keep this area of the law under review.

25. Vulnerable road user safety is also under-prioritised by the police, prosecutors and the courts. As discussed in paragraph 10, CTC members regularly report cases of the police refusing to attend crash scenes, to take reports or witness statements or to carry out proper investigations. They also regularly object to proposals for lower speed limits arguing that they have insufficient resources. The Health and Safety Executive also pleads poverty when pressed to take its road safety responsibilities more seriously. This too should be addressed urgently, given that a disproportionate number of road collisions involve someone who is driving for work,[67] while HGVs have a disproportionate involvement in cyclist fatalities (see paragraph 31).

26. Since hands-free mobile phones present a similar level of distraction as ordinary mobile phones we believe that they must be banned.[68]

27. The Government must follow the lead of other European countries and introduce an insurance structure whereby drivers in the event of a collision with a vulnerable road user are held to be liable unless negligence can be proved otherwise. There are good arguments of legal principle for making this change. Although fears are sometimes expressed that it would add to drivers' insurance premiums, a more likely outcome is it would lead to safer driving, hence fewer collisions—ie the improvement in road safety could mean reduced payouts as well.

Cycle friendly infrastructure

28. Cyclists persistently complain of the poor quality of highway and cycle facility design. This was particularly apparent when 11,000 cyclists complained to their MPs then a draft rewording of the Highway Code suggested that cyclists should use cycle facilities "where provided", potentially undermining their legal position if they decided not to use them for whatever reason. Work on updating the current 1996 "Cycle Friendly Infrastructure" guidelines has been in the pipeline for about five years and, since 2004 the Government has consulted on a poorly coordinated sequence of guidance notes.[69] Parliament was assured in December 2006 that the process would be completed in 2007,[70] yet even now the Government cannot commit to a publication date, saying only that they "expect to publish this year".[71] We are appalled by the lack of urgency in addressing this crucial issue.

29. We nonetheless welcome the inclusion in the draft guidelines (and in the Manual for Streets—see paragraph 18) of a "Hierarchy of Provision",[72] which advises planners that they should look first solutions involving traffic reduction, speed reduction or road-space reallocation before introducing specific cycle facilities. The Hierarchy should be widely adopted—and we have already highlighted the need to train planners and engineers in how to implement it (see paragraph 13), Adherence to its principles will reduce conflict between cyclists and other road users, particularly pedestrians, with road safety benefits for all concerned.

30. Cycle collisions occur disproportionately on rural major roads with 21 deaths per million vehicle kms—the same as motorcycles—recorded in 2006.[73] The failure of the Highways Agency to cater for cyclists and other vulnerable road users also needs to be addressed. The HA's Non-motorised User Crossings projects, promised in the Government's Walking and Cycling Action plan, needs dedicated funding and a timetable for its completion—at present it is unclear when it will be completed, if ever. Major trunk roads must be audited to ensure that safe cycle access is provided, either on-road or with wide, well-maintained cycle tracks where links alongside major roads are required.

Safer vehicles

31. In 2006 HGVs were involved in just 2.4% of collisions with pedal cyclists but 16% of cyclists' deaths occurred as a result of these collisions.[74] Inclusion of near-side, front-view and wide-angle mirrors need to be mandated for all lorries together with near-side equipment to warn the driver of the presence of a cyclist.

32. More needs to be done to improve vehicle front safety with regard to cyclists. Safety measures promoted by the European Commission have focused on head-on collisions with pedestrians, whereas most cycle collisions result in different impact points on the vehicle.[75]

33. Intelligent Speed Adaptation must be brought into the motor vehicle fleet, especially in hire-cars and commercial vehicles, with the incentive to employers that its use will encourage eco-driving.[76]

34. Use must be made of Event Data Recorders which gather information on vehicle handling and performance in the event of a crash. These could be trialled initially in particular vehicle types or for high-risk driver groups.

What should be the priorities for government in considering further targets for casualty reduction beyond 2010?

35. Given that 83% of all road casualties result from collisions involving a motor vehicle (97% for cyclists), targets for reduction of motor traffic and increasing modal shift to non-motorised modes of transport must be part of any future targets.[77]

36. As stated above, priorities must include tackling the discrepancies in vulnerable road user casualties, preferably through focussing on rate-based per hour and per trip casualty reduction targets. These rate-based targets for casualty reduction must be based not just on exposure to risk but also the level to which each road user poses risks to others—out of the 13,182 collisions between cars and cycles in 2006, 78 cyclists and 0 car users were killed, 99% of cyclists were casualties from these collisions, whereas just 2.7% of car users were slightly injured.[78] Setting rate-based targets would make it clear that the aim should be to achieve "more" as well as "safer" cycling, rather than seeing these objectives as being in conflict with one another (see paragraphs 5-7).

37. Sheer volumes and fear of traffic are two of the chief deterrents to cycling—amongst non-cyclists around 61% of one survey's respondents agreed or very much agreed that "fear of traffic would frighten them".[79] The perception of safety is one of the chief barriers to higher levels of walking and cycling, therefore qualitative data on the perception of the safety on the roads, especially with regard to walking and cycling, must be included in any future targets.

38. Rigorous enforcement and reduction of speed limits must be a priority for the next decade of road safety activities. A default 20 mph speed limit, such as recently proposed by the Mayor of London,[80] would, we believe, do more than anything else to reduce road casualties. Targets for proportion of the road network reduced in speed limits and adherence of traffic to these speeds must be adopted.

39. With the theme of climate change assuming ever greater attention in wider policy we believe that this should be reflected in the priorities for the next Road Safety Strategy. The importance of road safety policy in tackling greenhouse emissions from the transport sector cannot be overstated. If people are to be encouraged to reduce the carbon footprint caused by their travel, then it is essential to create conditions outside their front doors where they feel able to walk and cycle in safety, and to allow their children to do likewise.

February 2008

40 DfT. Towards a sustainable transport system. 2007. pp 37-39. Back

41 Crawford E. Beyond 2010-a holistic approach to road safety in Great Britain. PACTS, London. 2007. pp 32-33. Back

42 Jacobsen P. Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling. Injury Prevention vol 9 pp 205-209, 2003 (see http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/9/3/205). Back

43 DfT. Guidance on the Appraisal of Walking and Cycling Schemes-TAG Unit 3.14.1. March, 2007. Back

44 DfT. Walking and cycling: an action plan. 2004. Back

45 DfT. Road Casualties Great Britain: 2006. 2007. table 52. Back

46 Guardian. Cycle groups attack road safety "skull" campaign to shock youngsters. 27.5.2003. Back

47 Calderdale District Council. Killer Bikes. Press release November 2005. (Quoted at www.bikebiz.com/news/23783/UPDATE-TSOs-shock-comments-were-official). Back

48 Cycling Weekly. TfL road safety DVD shocker. 17.1.08. Back

49 Crawford E. Beyond 2010. 2007. p 34. Back

50 EU, Energy & Transport in Figures 2006. 2007, Table 3.1.3. Back