Memorandum from the IAM Motoring Trust
(RS 28)
INTRODUCTION
The IAM Motoring Trust is the research, policy
and advocacy arm of the Institute of Advanced Motorists (IAM).
The IAM is now in its 52nd year and has a membership of around
127,000 drivers committed to improving road safety. The IAM Motoring
Trust welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the debate about
the future of road user safety policy within the UK in the medium
and long term.
1. Have casualty reduction targets been useful
in focusing professional activity?
It is clear that the combination of challenging
but achievable targets, and effective policies for improving the
safety of different road user groups, focuses attention, effort
and resources on areas of greatest need. In TRL Report 382, Broughton,
Allsopp, Lynham and McMahon noted that "much of this reduction
can be linked to measures taken as a consequence of setting the
target".
However, experience of the past two target rounds
suggests that 10-year target periods may not be the most effective
approach. Most elements of both casualty reduction targets have
been met within the determined period, leaving a sense of hiatus
until new targets are set.
A much more challenging casualty reduction target,
set over 20 or 25 years, with five-yearly reviews, would encourage
longer term policies. Central and local government would also
be encouraged to incorporate the potential application of foreseeable
engineering and technological developments into both targets and
strategies. This approach would make a target of reducing KSI
casualties in all groups of at least 50 per cent by 2025, with
reductions of 60% among pedestrians a viable option.
A challenging casualty reduction target would
focus attention on road user groups that are over-represented
in the KSI tables, and on the most common causes of serious crashes
and casualties. It would also encourage open debate about the
political and social viability of introducing regulations that
would produce improvements essential to achieving the casualty
reduction targets.
While Britain's Roads: Safer for Everyone
recognised the importance of involving the wider community
in specific road-user education measures, the casualty reduction
targets were confined to central and local government and to government
agencies. Given the success of the policies and targets, the Government
should now consider how individuals and employers can be compelled
or at least encouraged to play their part in achieving road casualty
reductions. To do this a simple vision of future road safety is
needed that can be readily understood by road users, opinion formers
and legislators alike.
2. Drink and driving: What more can be done?
About 500 people die in drink related collisions
each year and 100,000 drivers are still arrested for drinking
and driving annually. The IAM Trust agrees that this figure is
far too high. Such figures, inevitably, generate calls for a new,
more stringent government response involving a lower permitted
alcohol limit and wider police powers.
The IAM Trust recognises the logic of arguments
for lowering the permitted alcohol level from the present 80 mg,
unchanged since 1967. The Grand Rapids study, upon which the RSA
1967 was based, suggested that 50 mg represented a significantly
lower collision risk.
However, the absence of clear data about the
number of serious casualties arising from collisions where one
or more drivers was below the 80mg limit—and how far below—complicates
the formulation of an evidence-based lower limit. Currently three
quarters of drivers killed whilst over the limit are found to
have BACs of over twice the existing limit. This suggests that
most accidents are caused by a minority of drivers who deliberately
ignore the limit—they are the least likely to be influenced
by an even lower limit.
Police resources are limited and it is the view
of the IAM Trust that considerable scope exists for more robust
enforcement of the present limit. Reducing the limit, without
significantly increasing police enforcement, may not produce the
projected casualty reduction benefits. While a lower limit may
act as a further deterrent for law-abiding motorists, only more
high-visibility police enforcement on the street will deter those
who ignore the present limit.
The IAM Trust would also support:
— further development of roadside evidential
breath testing, subject to robust calibration and checking systems;
— clearer police powers to breath test
any driver without the need for suspicion that they have committed
a moving traffic offence, have been involved in an accident or
have consumed alcohol;
— wider use of drink/drive rehabilitation
courses;
— education campaigns directed at the
high-risk age group at the point where they are most likely to
make decisions about drinking and driving, in bars, clubs and
public houses;
— the use of alcohol "ignition
interlocks" in the treatment of offenders, and encouragement
of motor manufacturers to install them in new cars; and
— research into the impact of greater
alcohol consumption in society as a whole on drink-driving. Social
factors such as cheap alcohol, longer licensing hours and lack
of safe late night public transport are all factors in the drink
drive issue.
3. Britain's casualty reduction approach,
compared with other EU countries
Casualty statistics suggest that road safety
in the UK compares favourably with the best of its EU neighbours,
although some countries eg, France, are making significant reductions,
albeit from a substantially higher starting point.
However, the IAM Trust does not have the detailed
knowledge of casualty statistics, social and economic conditions
and trends necessary to provide the detailed, evidence-based comparison
the Transport Committee wishes.
4. Road risk reduction, compared to other
modes of transport
Road risk reduction attracts less social and
political time, effort and money per casualty than other forms
of transport. If air or rail transport were to produce 3,000 casualties
per year, there would be a national outcry, whereas the prospect
of only 3,000 road deaths in 2007 is seen as a success for government
policy.
Investment in crash protection and accident
reduction schemes is very cost effective. The IAM Trust would
urge the Committee to underline to government that investment
in saving lives on the roads offers proportionally greater value
for money than saving lives on the railway.
5. Problems associated with shortages of
appropriately trained and skilled staff
The combination of local authority reorganisation
during the 1980s and the lack of long-term commitment to road
schemes has led to a lack of skilled engineers. And the trend
for young people to focus on non science subjects has led to key
skill shortages in areas such as safety engineering.
Reorganisation within police forces in line
with government priorities has led to fewer dedicated traffic
patrol officers, now called "roads policing specialists".
The IAM Trust believes that fear of being caught is the most influential
deterrent for poor driver behaviour. Not all traffic regulations
can be enforced remotely or decriminalised down to local authorities.
Chief Constables should be incentivised for their contribution
to safer roads.
To address skill shortages the government must:
— encourage greater take up of science
degrees;
— commit to long-term funding of transport
projects to encourage a career in engineering;
— link engineering and road safety
with "green" issues to attract good quality graduates;
— ensure education inspectors encourage
best practice in road safety education and link this to overall
school performance;
— embed road safety education in the
teaching of trainee teachers; and
— include road policing targets in
Home Office performance criteria for chief constables.
6. Further policies not already widely used,
which might be considered for future implementation and evidence
of their success
"Vision Zero"
The Swedish government has shown what can be
done when legislators commit vigorously to their responsibility
to make the roads safe. The concept of zero deaths on the roads
requires cross departmental working, "buy in" from the
general public, as well as a genuine increase in resources for
engineering, enforcement and education.
Occupational road risk
Company car drivers cover high mileage and have
a much higher risk of accident involvement than the general public.
All employers should be actively encouraged by government to share
the responsibility for reducing road collisions and casualties
involving their employees. The IAM Trust supports more research
into how best to involve the Health and Safety Executive in recording
road accidents at work. HSE involvement should reward responsible
employers who train staff, record incidents and use best practice
in fleet and driver management. It should not be an exercise in
form filling and red tape that adds unnecessarily to companies'
costs.
The insurance industry
The insurance industry is already involved in
many innovative and exciting accident reduction programmes. However,
the IAM Trust believes that motor insurers could do more. Each
of the following would help to encourage safer driver:
— incentives for advanced driver training;
— better targeting of high risk groups;
— more rewards for low-risk groups,
such as women; and
— encouragement of initiatives that
help novice drivers to gain experience.
The role of technology
Adopting long-term targets allows technological
developments to be evaluated to determine their effectiveness
and the best to be incorporated into action plans. A number of
possibilities merit serious consideration:
Active Traffic Management (ATM)—
the use of ATM on the M42 and the controlled sections of the M25
show what new technology can achieve. Congestion has been reduced
and accident savings are substantial. Drivers support and understand
these projects and they should be rolled out to other busy motorways
and trunks roads as a priority.
Incident detection and travel information—there
is a key role for better incident detection and use of roadside
information signs to let drivers know what is happening ahead.
Our motorways are now better managed than ever before and this
process must continue. Dealing with incidents quickly and informing
drivers of diversions and delays all contribute to road safety
by reducing stress and the potential for further collisions.
Intelligent speed adaptation (ISA)—
trials of ISA suggest that advisory use is enough to make most
drivers adhere to the speed limit. Fitting of such equipment should
be voluntary and incentivised through insurance discounts. With
advances in satellite technology, ISA offers the potential to
set speed limits to reflect weather conditions and road environment.
Ultimately it could remove the need for traffic calming features,
as the technology takes over and slows traffic outside schools
or in residential areas.
Active safety aids for drivers—following
on from the success of informal agreements to fit ABS as standard
on all new cars, the government should encourage and incentivise
the compulsory fitting of traction control and brake assist systems
with the minimum of delay.
Star rating for roads—too many people
die, or are seriously injured following head-on collisions, side
impacts at junctions or collisions with roadside features. Even
a modern five-star rated EuroNCAP car cannot protect its occupants
in the event of such crashes. The European Road Assessment Programme
(EuroRAP) is bringing together motoring organisations, governments
and engineers from across Europe to inform consumers where their
risk is highest and to improve the crash protection offered by
roads.
While most road collisions start with human
error, all too often the roads themselves punish that error with
death or serious injury. The ideal road safety system should see
car or rider, vehicle and road working together to save lives.
Too many roads still contain lethal junctions or unprotected roadside
objects. On our single carriageway network little effort is put
into addressing the issue of head on crashes. In Sweden and Norway,
new road designs are making single carriageways as safe as motorways.
The IAM Trust recommends the adoption of star-rating
as a standard diagnostic tool for engineers. The results can be
used to direct resources and ultimately to set speed limits based
on risk to drivers.
Road User education
Most road casualties are caused by a few basic
errors. Road Casualties GB has, for the past two years, carried
data about collision causation factors gathered by the police.
They indicate that for all road user types:
— 35% of all casualties were caused
by "failing to look properly";
— 18% of collisions were caused by
"failing to judge the other person's, or vehicle's path or
speed"; and
— 18% of crashes are caused by drivers
"being careless, reckless and in a hurry".
These figures are for all types of road user,
but are supported and emphasised by the causation data for pedestrian
fatalities:
— 57% caused by one or both parties
in the crash failing to look properly; and
— 26% being caused by one or both parties
being careless, reckless or in a hurry.
Concentration, observation and correct speed
choice are key elements of advanced driver training. A scientific
study for the IAM by Brunel University showed that 70% of drivers
coached to the advanced driving standard showed measurable improvements
in key safety areas. Advanced training delivers safer drivers.
Incentives to take further training must be developed
by the government and encouraged as a key part of a lifelong learning
approach to driving.
7. Priority areas for further targets beyond
2010
Priorities for casualty reduction targets must
focus on those groups which are most vulnerable and most at risk:
— young road users, whether as child
or adolescent pedestrians and cyclists, or young adult drivers,
passengers and motorcyclists;
— motorcyclists are over represented
in the casualty statistics. Many new bikers actively choose to
"challenge" the road as they seek to enjoy their new
machines to the full. Extra training on courses such as the IAM
test for motorbikes should be encouraged to deal not just with
basic skills but attitudes;
— car/van occupants make up 50% of
all casualty groups. With the involvement of employers, trade
unions and government, crashes involving business users can be
substantially reduced. Knowledge of the implications of "occupational
road risk" is growing. In the long term, the IAM does not
believe that the voluntary approach can work. The designation
of the driving seat as a place of work under health and safety
legislation is required. A properly designed scheme need not add
to the administrative burden for companies;
— elderly road users represent a unique
challenge as their mobility increases and their needs should be
recognised by road and vehicle designers. Voluntary driving assessments
should be made more widely available to help drivers to decide
whether to end their driving careers;
— the IAM Trust would like to see active
promotion of the benefits of continued driver training beyond
the basic driving test. Driving is a "skill for life",
requiring extra skills and independent assessment;
— drinking and driving continues to
present a challenge to safe road use, despite 40 years of enforcement.
A thorough review is needed of all education, engineering and
enforcement options to determine the most effective means of securing
and maintaining significant reductions in this grossly anti-social
behaviour;
— speed limits must be reviewed regularly
to ensure they meet modern standards and encourage self enforcement
by the majority of drivers;
— the safety camera programme should
continue but with a stronger focus on long-term solutions to the
problem locations they are protecting, which, in most cases, will
require engineering improvements; and
— the great majority of fatal and serious
accidents occur on single carriageway rural roads. New targets
must include a category for rural roads if real progress in reducing
overall deaths to be made.
February 2008
| 
