Supplementary memorandum from CTC (RS
26A)
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.
2. This supplementary memorandum follows
our formal response to the questions posed. We wish to bring three
further matters to the attention of the Committee: firstly a section
of closer analysis of the trends in cycling and walking (and their
relative safety figures); secondly discussion of a worrying recent
spate of the deaths of cyclists in collision with lorries; thirdly
some comments on the Government's newly published proposals for
reforming the training of novice drivers; and finally a report
on our judicial review of the Crown Prosecution Guidance (CPS)
on prosecuting dangerous and careless driving.
How does Great Britain compare with other EU countries
on reducing deaths and injuries?
3. Further to our previous submission, we
would like to draw the Committee's attention to more detailed
statistical evidence for the evidence that the UK has relatively
poor road safety figures for vulnerable road users.
4. Although the Government is proud of Britain's
overall road safety record, we are towards the lower end of the
European league table in terms of pedestrian and cyclist safety.
Measured in terms of millions of km cycled per fatality, Germany,
Belgium, Sweden, Denmark all perform better than Britain. These
countries also outperform Britain for the equivalent measure of
pedestrian fatality rates—see figure 1.
Sources: IRTAD, 2005; EU Transport Statistics,
2003
5. Research indicates that as levels of
cycling increase, there is a disproportionate increase in cyclists'
safety. This has been witnessed recently in London—where
an 83% increase in cycling (2000-05) coincided with a 42% decrease
in killed and seriously injured cyclists on London's roads (against
the 1994-98 average).[81]
6. Evidence from Europe further supports
this position. Denmark, with a cyclist fatality every 122 million
kilometres, also has one of the highest levels of personal cycle
use—936 km per person per year. The UK, on the other hand,
has personal cycle use of 75 km a year and a death every 30.4
million kilometres—see figure 2 below.
Sources: IRTAD, 2005; EU Transport Statistics,
2003
LORRIES AND
CYCLISTS—RECENT
DEVELOPMENTS
7. Although we mentioned this topic in our
previous submission, we would like to bring the Committee's attention
to the recent spate of cyclists' deaths involving HGVs. Since
the start of 2008 four out of the five cyclists who have been
killed in London were in collisions involving HGVs, three of which
we know to be construction vehicles. Goods vehicles have also
been involved in cyclist fatalities in Edinburgh,[82]
Northallerton[83]
and probably also in North Tyneside.[84]
8. Dealing with the threat posed to cyclists
by HGVs is difficult. Recent EC legislation forcing lorries to
install extra mirrors[85]
may help but there is little sign of it being implemented in the
immediate future in the UK. Research is needed to determine how
best to address the problem. Solutions to consider include vehicle
safety features (detectors and audible warnings, mirrors, "black
box" event data recorders, intelligent speed adaptation etc),
driver training and awareness initiatives, fleet management and
regulatory or enforcement options.
9. Our provisional view is that three options
are likely to prove particularly effective. The first is to strengthen
the requirements for those seeking goods vehicle licenses to be
trained in and to demonstrate awareness of cycle safety issues—see
the section on "novice drivers" below. The second is
to invest more in adult cycle training. Although it is unclear
to what extent cyclists are at fault for collisions involving
HGVs (eg by attempting to ride up the inside of a goods vehicle
which then turns left, rather than being overtaken by a goods
vehicle which then cuts across the cyclist), good cycle training
can prevent hazardous situations arising in the first place, by
giving them the confidence to position themselves where they can
see, be seen and avoid being overtaken in situations where this
could be dangerous. Finally we recommend that the heavy goods
vehicle section of professional drivers' licences be suspended
following a fatal or serious injury collision until exculpated.
10. We urged DfT to consider these and other
potential solutions to the HGV safety issue as part of its forthcoming
study of factors affecting cyclists' safety. Regrettably they
concluded this could not be done within the project budget. We
therefore urge the committee to highlight this ongoing research
need in its recommendations.
NOVICE DRIVERS
11. The Government has recently published
consultation proposals for improving the training of novice drivers.
Preparation for the driving test is a vital opportunity to instil
appropriate attitudes towards and understanding of cyclists and
their needs, and this in turn is a key determinant of cyclists'
safety. We therefore note with amazement that the Government has
not included any organisation concerned with either walking or
cycling in its list of consultees, let alone the extensive pre-consultation
exercises which have evidently taken place. This is all the more
extraordinary given that our recent campaign on the Highway Code
clearly flagged up the training and information given to drivers
as a major issue for cyclists' safety.
12. We will seek a dialogue with Government
over these issues and will consider a full consultation response
in due course. However we feel that two issues merit immediate
comment, these being driver understanding and the potential role
of cycle training.
13. The consultation document rightly stresses
the need to ensure that learner-drivers understand the issues
they are being tested on rather than learning them by rote. They
therefore propose to strengthen the hazard awareness section of
the driving test. We would add however that the same approach
also needs to apply to trainees' understanding of the rules of
the road. Speed awareness and driver training courses have demonstrated
that drivers are more likely to respect rules when they understand
(for instance) that the chances of killing a pedestrian rise by
around 5% for each extra 1mph on the clock, or that mobile phone
use (hands-free as well as hand held) impairs a driver's responses
by about the same amount as being at the drink-drive limit. We
therefore believe that the theory test as well as the hazard perception
test should cover a syllabus which requires trainees to demonstrate
that they have understood (rather than merely learnt) the rules
of the road.
14. Secondly, there is a good deal of anecdotal
evidence that people who have completed more advanced cycle training
(to levels 2 or 3 of the Government-backed "Bikeability"
cycle training standard) become safer and more cycle-aware drivers
(as well as safer and more confident cyclists), and pass their
driving test more quickly. This would be consistent with other
research that drivers who do not cycle have a poor understanding
of what constitutes correct and responsible cyclist behaviour,
but that understanding is much better among those who do cycle.[86]
There is research demonstrating that cycle training is highly
effective in encouraging people to cycle more and to feel more
confident when doing so, but very little on its safety impacts,
and none on whether it improves trainees' competences as drivers,
or the speed at which they learn to drive. We therefore urge the
Committee to call on the Government to research the safety benefits
of cycle training. We suspect it could play a major role not only
in improving cyclists' safety but also in improving the safety
of how drivers interact with cyclists. Cycle training, or at least
cycle awareness training, may be a particularly effective solution
to the hazards presented by goods vehicle drivers.
BAD DRIVING
OFFENCES AND
CTC'S JUDICIAL
REVIEW OF
THE CPS GUIDANCE
15. CTC has initiated legal proceedings
against the CPS's decision to bring into force their guidance
on prosecuting careless and dangerous driving offences. Although
we recognise that the Committee will not wish to comment directly
on a matter which is before the courts, this note sets out the
underlying issues and makes recommendations relevant to them.
16. The CPS guidance was revised following
the Road Safety Act 2006 and includes guidance on prosecuting
the new offence of Causing Death by Careless Driving. CTC responded
to the consultation in March 2007. A key issue in CTC's response
was the CPS's guidance on how prosecutors should decide whether
to prosecute for a "dangerous" or a "careless"
driving offence.
17. The statutory test for dangerous driving
is set out in Road Traffic Act 1988, section 2A. Subsection 1
states that a person drives dangerously when the way he or she
drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and
careful driver and it would be obvious to a competent and careful
driver that driving in that way would be dangerous. Subsection
3 defines "dangerous" in this context as meaning the
risk "either of injury to any person or of serious property
damage".
18. Subsequent case law has established
that this is an entirely objective test. In other words, the statute
does not require any evidence that the driver intended to drive
dangerously, or was negligent or even aware of the possibility
that the way they were driving would give rise to danger. The
only requirements are that the manner of driving fell "far
below" the required standard, that it gave rise to a risk
of injury or serious property damage and that this risk would
be obvious to a competent and careful driver observing the scene.
19. In its 2004 report on Traffic Law and
Enforcement, the Select Committee stressed the need for a major
overhaul in the law on traffic offences and sentencing, and the
priority attached to traffic law by police, CPS and all other
relevant agencies. It noted that the CPS appears reluctant to
prosecute "dangerous" driving offences, perhaps because
it CPS (understandably) perceives that jurors are reluctant to
expose drivers to the risk of long sentences by convicting a fellow
citizen of "dangerous" driving—even when the driving
was clearly "dangerous" by any objective standard—as
they realise they could easily make a similar error themselves.
The Committee therefore urged that the two-tier distinction between
"dangerous" and "careless" driving offences
should be replaced with a single tier of "negligent"
driving offences, with judges or magistrates determining sentences
for the most and least serious offences following clear sentencing
guidelines. It also recommended that " [the] promised
revision of charging standards must start from a wholesale reconsideration
of the standards, not minor amendments", adding that
"Some of the existing standards appear unduly lenient".
20. We very much regret that neither of
these recommendations has been heeded. Instead of the more thorough
overhaul recommended by the Committee, the Government has simply
added a new offence of "causing death by careless driving"
to the statute books. It remains to be seen what effect this amendment
will have; although well-intentioned, we fear it could prove counter-productive,
leading prosecutors to downgrade cases which they would previously
have treated as "causing death by dangerous driving",
on the basis that a "careless" conviction will be easier
to secure.
21. This legislative change prompted the
publication (in December 2007) of the new charging standard for
bad driving offences. Although CTC welcomed the increased importance
which it attaches to mobile phone use (another issue on which
the Committee made strong recommendations), we regret that it
does not represent the fundamental overhaul which the Committee
and others (CTC included) had called for. Emerging from a side
road is still to be classed as "careless", even though
the CPS's consultation had noted that this can be "particularly
dangerous for cyclists and motorcyclists". Indeed CPS
has provided an assessment of how recent cases might have been
treated under the new guidelines, which shows that they still
propose to class as "careless" many cases which we believe
are objectively dangerous.
22. The deterrence factor of sentences for
dangerous driving therefore continues to be eroded by regular
reports of cases of extremely bad driving being prosecuted for
minor offences with resulting desultory sentences. The legal system's
continuing dismissal of driving which objectively causes danger
as mere "carelessness" is undermining efforts to persuade
drivers of the need to take greater responsibility for the safety
of other road users.
23. We hope our challenge will result in
the CPS (and hence the courts) treating more cases as dangerous
rather than careless driving.
24. Nonetheless, there remain some fundamental
problems with the definitions of the various bad driving offences,
the sentencing framework, and the priority given to traffic law
and enforcement by Government and police forces alike. We therefore
urge the Committee to recommend the Government to keep the framework
of "bad driving" offences under review and to carry
out a much more comprehensive overhaul—as recommended by
the Committee's previous report—if this turns out to be
justified (as we fear). We also urge the Committee to reiterate
its recommendations on priority for road traffic policing, sentencing
and the need to hear all cases involving death and serious injury
in the crown court rather than the magistrates.
May 2008
81 GLA Press Release, "Mayor announces doubling
of cycle journeys in London", 26/10/2005; LRSU, 2005. Back
82
http://www.lbp.police.uk/press_release/articles/2008/April/29/1.htm Back
83
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/topstories/display.var.2222647.0.teenage_cyclist_killed_in_collision_with_lorrry.php Back
84
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/7213939.stm Back
85
Directive 2007/38/EC. Back
86
L Basford et al. Drivers' perceptions of cyclists. Transport Research
Laboratory report TRL 549, 2002 (see http://www.trl.co.uk/store/downloadreport.asp?id=2700). Back
| 
