Memorandum from The Automobile Association
(AA) (RS 34)
VIEWS OF
THE AUTOMOBILE
ASSOCIATION—SUMMARY
When this inquiry was announced, all the evidence
was that Britain's road safety performance, at least in terms
of cutting deaths, was on a plateau. Provisional figures published
in February may show that this is no longer the case, with a decline
of 160 against the corresponding 12 months a year ago. There are,
however, many factors which can affect the level of road deaths
in a single year.
Road safety targets have been a success story,
and there should be new targets after 2010. These targets should
include a national target for reducing deaths on the road, while
other, wider targets should exist along with ones for clearly
defined classes of road user, and it is these which should be
at the centre of local authority efforts. A target for young drivers,
and one for older people are particularly needed.
The AA is concerned that there is a growing
backlash against surveillance, restriction and what is seen as
the nanny state. The large increase in the remote detection of
some offences through cameras and ANPR has driven a wedge between
some of the public and those responsible for managing and enforcing
traffic, parking and road safety rules. The loss of traditional
traffic policing and trained officers is unfortunate, and many
drivers find it hard to treat parking, congestion charge and road
safety enforcement as different.
In some ways this backlash has its origins in
the reporting of what are referred to as "absurd health and
safety" restrictions, and in coverage of speed camera and
road pricing issues. But widespread arguments in the press seem
to have convinced many motorists that Britain's road safety strategy
is failing, and that it is more about raising money and being
restrictive than cutting deaths. This, along with the activities
of some organisations that question the direction of the road
safety effort, can be considered to be tantamount to an anti-road
safety lobby—a new phenomenon in international road safety.
It has to be wondered whether respect for and compliance with
the law is affected by such controversial publicity.
To overcome this concern, measures need to be
introduced at the right pace, and in a way that is designed to
make them appeal to people and to reduce any immediate adverse
impact. Blanket residential 20mph zones are a case in point and
implementation should be carried out in a way that means most
people live in, and benefit from a zone before they are even contemplated
on roads which can be considered through routes.
The level of enforcement is key, and the inclusion
of key motoring offences within police targets for offences brought
to justice is vital. In many ways early experience with the mobile
phone law has shown that a law introduced but not enforced makes
little difference.
INTRODUCTION
Road safety targets have given the road safety
effort a focus. Whatever target is introduced from 2010 must learn
the lessons of the previous targets, particularly in setting a
target for deaths on the road. There are many new measures that
can increase road safety over the next 12 years, but key to any
of these is maintaining a satisfactory level of public acceptability
for any measures proposed. The AA sees roles for enhanced police
targets and activity, tightening of drink-drive laws, and respected
low speed zones in residential areas, but believes that the pace
of change must be managed to ensure that increasing concern about
restrictions and surveillance, and the "nanny state"
can be overcome.
1. To what extent have targets for casualty
reduction been a useful tool for focusing professional activity?
They have done a good job in focusing activity.
This is however directed solely towards achieving the targets.
Much attention has been applied to the absence of a reduction
in deaths, even though there is no target for reducing deaths.
It is more than a little unfair that professionals are criticised
for not reducing deaths, when they are doing well at achieving
the target they were set. This criticism can also give the general
public the view that the road safety strategy is failing, and
this may not make them more likely to respect new safety rules
and guidelines. Recently published provisional figures show that
reductions in deaths are again being achieved.
2. What further measures need to be adopted
to reduce deaths and injuries arising from drinking and driving?
Targets
The conviction of drink drive offenders is not
currently an "offence brought to justice" within the
targets set for police. Changing this, and therefore increasing
the priority of drink drive policing for the police is a critical
and necessary change.
Enforcement
No change in drink driving law is likely to
be effective unless drivers feel likely to be caught if they drink
and drive. This means that there have to be police officers on
the street enforcing the law, and these have to be visible. Allowing
"random breath testing", provided this power is sensibly
used, will raise the profile of this offence which is widely recognised
as anti-social, will increase people's perception of being stopped,
and should make them more likely to see people stopped. Seeing
another driver breathalysed and knowing that the powers exist
for it to have been you provides a salutary experience. But continuing
to target the groups most likely to offend, and those who exceed
the limit by a considerable margin is still vital.
Roadside evidential testing is also a key measure.
By making more of limited police resources (drivers will not have
to be taken back to the police station and evidentially tested
in a time consuming process that effectively removes a police
officer from the road) and by effectively cutting the drink drive
limit this measure has huge potential. "Immediate" evidential
tests could save up to an hour of time, time in which the offender
is eliminating alcohol from the system.
While supporting roadside evidential testing,
the AA urges some caution—the new system must be trusted
by the public. Therefore we believe that the blood option should
remain, on the current basis, for some time after the new machines
are introduced. Maintaining public confidence in the accuracy
of a machine that will send some drivers to jail, and cost licences
and livelihoods, is paramount.
The introduction of technology to detect, at
the roadside, drivers who have taken illegal drugs is also needed.
Too many drug drivers believe they cannot be caught.
The drink drive limit
The AA would not oppose a reduction in the limit
to the 50 mg level used in most of Europe. However, we still have
some concerns. While there has long been public support for cutting
the drink drive limit, we remain concerned that we may not have
the enforcement levels to get the best from the change, even though
this could be overcome to some extent by evidential roadside testing.
It is widely acknowledged that a reduction will be unlikely to
tackle the drivers who are most impaired, most likely to have
an accident and least likely to even think about the amount they
drink. But we are aware that expert opinion believes a change
can save some 65 lives even without affecting this hard core.
A reduction in the limit will also mean the long established norms
for drinking and driving will have to change at a time when more
and more drivers are worried about increasing restriction and
surveillance. Additionally, exceeding the new, lower limit will
incur a minimum penalty greater than in those countries that already
have the 50 mg limit.
3. How does Great Britain compare with other
EU countries in its approach to reducing deaths and injuries?
It is difficult and sometimes unfair to compare
the actions taken by different countries. All have differences,
and all did not start in the same place. While it is easy to point
to success stories of recent years—France for example—it
is equally easy to question whether such success would have been
achieved if adequate measures had been taken in earlier years
and the situation had not been allowed to become as bad as it
was. There is a reasonable argument that Britain's stagnation
(at least in terms of reducing deaths) has its roots in earlier
success.
In the early years of this decade it seemed
that Britain was on a plateau shared by the other "best"
road safety countries. Recent improvements by the others now call
this into question, and can be for a number of reasons, most of
which apply to differing extents in other countries:
— we have taken our eye off the ball
and been more occupied with crime and terrorism;
— we have seen the development of new
trends especially "extreme driving and motorcycling"
and not yet managed to counter them;
— we have set out on a course of restriction
and enforcement which has failed to resonate with the British
public, and which may even have had an adverse effect by creating
an "anti road safety lobby"; and
— our road safety strategy is wrong.
The AA is more inclined to believe in combinations
of the first three of these points, rather than the fourth.
Together these factors may mean we enforce with
police officers less, and have tried to compensate by using automatic
enforcement in a way that, with hindsight, could have been done
much better, particularly with regard to keeping public and press
support. We have also introduced new offences, and increased penalties,
relying it seems on compliance to improve safety. But it must
not be forgotten that serious injuries have fallen, as the target
requires.
It is interesting that many foreign governments
have successfully lowered speeds in residential streets—generally
through engineering the street to make it hard to drive fast,
and by providing alternative routes. These schemes have also evolved,
rather than being imposed, all at once, as a blanket regulation.
Great Britain seems to be looking more and more at imposing these
limits without engineering the routes and relying upon automatic
enforcement. While we can see from overseas experience that the
principle of slower speeds work, we have no evidence that the
enforcement based method works. Often it is the culture that is
different. Such a method has the potential to cause more public
upset and possibly to increase CO2 emissions.
20 mph speed limits
There is considerable logic in looking to increase
the number of 20 mph limits in residential areas. Much of the
key to doing this effectively is to introduce the system in a
way that is seen as acceptable by drivers, especially on those
roads which are both "residential" and major traffic
routes.
The AA has argued a phased approach. The first
phase would be to create a "fast track" for the introduction
of 20 mph limits in those residential streets where it is fundamentally
difficult to exceed that limit. This could include almost all
post 1980, cul-de-sac based housing developments, and many purely
residential roads in urban areas. This would create the situation
where a significant proportion of the population lived in 20 mph
limits and would therefore be more likely to respect these limits.
This would not have a great impact on road casualties—but
it would however create the atmosphere in which 20 limits would
be accepted by most drivers.
Later, these limits could be extended to take
in other residential streets that were relatively low on the road
hierarchy. A good guide would be those roads which were not bus
routes. Further extensions would be possible in the future.
4. How do approaches in reductions in risk
on the roads compare to those adopted in other modes of transport?
Road safety is different to safety in other
modes of transport. Rail safety improvements tend to be costly—while
road safety can save a life with a simple sign or a white line.
Road safety has to cope with 35 million drivers and 60-plus million
people who used the roads. But both systems can engineer protection
for users. Both need a systematic approach.
In most areas safety relies on protecting users
through physical measures (ie guard on guillotine) or technology.
Road safety has been that way, but now seems more intent on behavioural
change among users. Protection still has a role, and the AA believes
that there is still much to be gained from engineering and technology.
The first road safety target was based engineering
techniques which made it harder for road users to make mistakes.
Much was achieved with little more than white paint. It also benefitted,
as has the second target, from vehicles being designed to protect
their occupants. It remains questionable what contribution education
has made—even though driving tests have been made harder
and the theoretical test introduced.
The behavioural change agenda may be achieved
for new drivers through better driver training and testing. But
for experienced drivers it seems to be based upon more rules and
tougher penalties. What little coverage of road safety appears
in the media seems to be dominated by these aspects, and by questions
about why death reductions have "stalled". There is
little wonder that some feel that restrictions are not saving
lives and may be being imposed for some other reason.
5. Are there specific blockages caused by
shortages of appropriately trained and skilled staff?
Yes, there are undoubtedly blockages on high
standard safety schemes. However, there are grounds to ask whether
ever more sophisticated systems are what are needed. There may
well be scope for simpler measures. As an example most continental
countries have better pedestrian safety records than Great Britain
yet use pedestrian crossings engineered to a much lesser scale.
Would more crossings, but less sophisticated than those currently
used, make for safer pedestrians? This is an approach which would
need less skilled staff and less bureaucracy.
Making safer roads through following the principles
of the European Road Assessment Programme also allow for measures
to be made without needing top calibre staff.
New rules seem to be ineffective if they are
not accompanied by adequate enforcement—the mobile phone
law has shown this. Staff shortages include traffic police, as
well as engineers.
6. What further policies, not already widely
used, might be considered for adoption and what evidence there
is for their success?
Innovative thinking is called for—spending
millions on local safety schemes is to be applauded but all too
often critical road maintenance is neglected. Meanwhile there
is never time or money available for road safety education in
schools, which can teach small children how to be safe pedestrians
and cyclists, often with practical, on road sessions. It can then
move on to work on developing in children in their teens the right
attitudes towards driving—there is much evidence that the
wrong attitudes develop long before young people are old enough
to have licences. The road safety dimension is still missing in
schools, even though time has been found to add cookery and culture
to the syllabus.
Many times road safety innovations come from
non-transport budgets but liaison between the different functions
in national and local government leaves much to be desired.
7. What should be the priorities for government
in considering further targets for casualty reduction beyond 2010?
Road safety targets
Targets are a way of achieving a vision and
road safety needs a vision as well as targets. The existence of
an aspirational target both overcomes the argument that a level
of death and injury is "accepted" by the target, and
shows that changing some things—especially attitudes and
behaviour—can only be achieved in the long term. But the
vision does need to be pragmatic and accept that some death and
injury on the road is inevitable. There are attractions in the
approach of linking the road death vision to safety performance
in other areas of transport and life.
The new target and strategy, and any new vision,
will need a "champion"—someone who has the respect
and trust of most people. Such a champion can help convince people
that measures are needed to save life, will be effective and will
be reviewed if effectiveness is in doubt. A "champion"
can also encourage support across the community for a strategy
that is for the common good.
There has to be a road deaths target. This must
be a national target, but should not be turned into a local target.
Analysis of recent figures shows that there are considerable fluctuations
in local performance over times and that these could easily be
more a reflection of randomness than of the performance of the
local authority.
Targets should also be set for killed and seriously
injured and for all casualties. Local authorities could then disaggregate
these targets for local use. An all casualties target is important
for sub groups of the casualty total (ie individual road user
groups) where at a local authority level figures can again become
low.
The increasing number of older people means
that they should have their own targets, taking their population
growth and travel patterns into account. A target for new and
young drivers also seems appropriate.
Other targets
While we need a numerical road safety target,
it is also important that other targets reflect the need for activity
directed at improving road safety.
The most important of these would be targets
for policing activity, and crucial among these would be the inclusion
of drink driving in the offences brought to justice targets for
the police. There could also be arguments for the introduction
of similar targets for the apprehension of unlicensed and uninsured
driving.
The need for road safety education in schools
could also be reflected in educational targets. Separate targets
may be needed for the different tasks of educating the young in
road use, and instilling the right attitudes in teenagers.
Extreme Driving
There are many (mainly drivers and motorcyclists)
who appear to have decided either to break the law, or to drive
in a manner involving showing off, taking risks, or pushing their
driving skills to the limit. This group includes those who drink
and drive and take illegal drugs and drive. It would be interesting
to be able to quantify this group, both in terms of the number
of drivers involved and the death and injury problems that result.
It does not seem unreasonable to assume that it takes in 700 to
800 fatalities, and that the majority of these involve death or
injury to occupants of the vehicle being driven in this way. If
the existence of this group is accepted, it is more than likely
that the average road user who takes care and drivers within established
norms is becoming considerably safer. If this group could be quantified,
a target for its reduction would be justified.
Deliverability
The target must be deliverable and the resources
made available to deliver it.
Safety versus environment and economy
This will be a key area in the next 10 to 15
years. The AA has raised questions about the effect of 20 mph
limits, where they would mean cars travelled for reasonable distances
at a steady 20, on increasing CO2 over that produced by 30 limits.
Somewhere a balance has to be struck.
Recent events have also seen the Minister of
State at the Department for Transport say "Experience shows
that better street lighting helps improve road safety, as well
as reducing crime and the fear of crime. It is also helps create
happier and healthier local communities by promoting social inclusion
and more sustainable patterns of transport by encouraging people
to cycle and walk". Meanwhile, many local authorities have
switched off some street lights late at night on grounds of economy
or environment.
Keeping a perspective
It has become accepted for those working in
road safety to say "we are working in road safety, we are
saving lives, we are right". Those days may be over. Now
road safety needs to be able to prove to a motoring public concerned
about growing restriction and surveillance, that its measures
are saving lives and are right. This may not be because they have
been wrong, but because the public now has doubts.
February 2008
| 
