Memorandum from Ian Belchamber (RS 39)
1. SUMMARY
My interest in road safety was triggered by
a combination of factors:
— I'm an experienced driver of cars
and motorcycles with many years of experience, with an almost
perfect driving record.
— I am aware of increasing actual accident
counts in my area, deteriorating driving standards and worsening
congestion. I am also aware that current policy does not target
the real problems and frequently targets the wrong ones.
— My interest has given rise to a website
which has attracted some considerable attention, and it has become
clear that many are dissatisfied with current policy. It is the
view of many that a policy that targets the real primary problems
more directly would result in a real and significant improvement
in road safety with improvements also in road efficiency. My evidence
is therefore based on the observations and thoughts of the "end
users" of road safety. Where specific problems are mentioned
these are likely to relate to the Dorset area.
2. CURRENT ROAD
SAFETY POLICY
2.1 Speed
Most would agree that current policy focuses
on speed much more than anything else. Many see this as the first
main problem. Also, there are many problems with the way that
speed limits are set and enforced.
Observations
2.1.1 Many authorities will use speed limit
reductions almost in isolation to reduce accidents. This has resulted
in limits on many roads very much lower than an average experienced
safe driver would choose, far below the natural safe speed for
the road. See this road for example, a 30 limit dual carriageway
favoured for enforcement by the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership:
http://dorsetspeed.org.uk/news/2007-11-07.aspx
2.1.2 Many speed limits are set with apparently
little consideration for the actual risks present, sometimes too
low, sometimes too high. See these pictures of a ¼ closed
road with cones, workers and equipment, and a 50 limit: http://dorsetspeed.org.uk/limits.aspx.
Just with these few images, I have clearly demonstrated that limits
are set completely incorrectly. How can the publicity that driving
at 30 in a 30 limit is completely safe, and 31 in a 30 highly
dangerous, therefore have any credibility with the thinking public?
It does not.
2.1.3 See this video of driving along a
one mile normally NSL dual carriageway which is completely clear
but which has a temporary 30 limit due to "DfT guidelines"
: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc1Y2580YFg. This is proof that
drivers will not drive at a small fraction of the natural safe
road speed unless it is obviously enforced. Further evidence can
be seen every day on the 50 and 30 limits near Holes Bay in Poole,
which are completely ignored. This is not dangerous driving, but
normal safe drivers not taking notice of speed limits because
there is clearly no need to drive so massively below the natural
safe road speed. Those who support current policy often claim
it is successful in making speeding socially unacceptable; in
fact it is achieving exactly the opposite as the evidence in this
paragraph proves.
2.1.4 No one takes responsibility for obvious
problems and inconsistencies with speed limits. Reporting situations
like the above is most likely to result in no response and no
action. If you can get a response, it is likely to be that the
councils are following DFT guidelines, and the DFT will say the
councils should set limits according to local needs. Likewise,
when the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership are tackled on their
intentions, they don't respond which does not give the impression
of an organisation which has any integrity or belief in its actions.
Situations like this don't help to promote current policy.
2.1.5 Enforcement is carried out in a way
which alienates the majority of safe drivers from safety policy
and the law, and which does little to target problem speeders
who can easily avoid detection. A quick search on the web provides
plenty of evidence for this. Here are just a few links:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A16239242
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in—article—id=484767&in—page—id=1770
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/04/nspeed104.xml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3529864.stm
http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/discussion/speed-cameras-and-speed-limits/1051117/
2.1.6 Statistics often quoted to support
the current policy lack credibility: According to the DfT, The
percentages of road deaths where excess speed was a factor is
about 30%. But this is widely disputed and much more likely to
be in the region of 4%. Given that this 4% is likely to include
"lunatic" speeding which EVERYONE would like to see
targeted but which bright yellow boxes and badly chosen mobile
speed traps don't, it is hardly difficult to see why current policy
is considered so misguided. Also widely disputed are the accident
and casualty figures, which the DfT claims are reducing, but this
is not matched by hospital figures and the views at least the
Chief Constable of Dorset Police. When directly challenged about
this recently, Andy Smith and John Gray of the DfT failed to respond.
Again, there is plenty of evidence available to support this,
here is a sample:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/29/nspeed29.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/main.jhtml;jsessionid=SDB3W1SF1I0MLQFIQMFCFFOAVC
BQYIV0?xml=/motoring/2007/11/10/mfspeed10.xml&page=1
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in—article_id=406769&in_page_id
=1770
2.1.7 Insurance companies no longer necessarily
load the premiums of those who have even multiple speeding convictions.
They do not necessarily consider those drivers more dangerous.
2.1.8 Current policy does not target:
— Dangerous speeders who can easily
overcome current enforcement.
— Lane hogs/drifters/jumpers.
— Drivers who demonstrate a complete
lack of awareness for those around them.
— Those who drive too slowly causing
frustration and overtaking.
— Drivers who don't use sliproads to
adjust their speed to the road they are joining.
— Incredibly, those who cause accidents.
Anyone causing an accident should get a minimum 6 points.
— Drivers who are clearly not concentrating
on their driving.
These things certainly are more dangerous than
driving at 34 in some 30 limits, which is where the safety partnerships
concentrate their efforts.
2.1.9 The numbers of speeding convictions
have increased massively over the last few years:
see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=RB2H4QDGQXJALQFIQMGSFGGAVC
BQWIV0?xml=/news/2007/12/04/nspeed104.xml. But most will agree
that driving standards are deteriorating and accident rates are
increasing. Therefore, the current policy has failed.
2.1.10 Attempting to achieve "satisfactory"
accident rates only by reducing speeds is not likely to be effective
until we have 10MPH limits on all roads enforced every inch. This
is not the way forward.
3. SUGGESTIONS
3.1.1 Software and technology have come
along way since speed cameras were introduced. There is no reason
why they cannot be enhanced to detect many of the other forms
of bad driving. This would allow a much better balance for automated
enforcement and a relaxation in speeding enforcement which most
consider has got completely out of control.
3.1.2 There should be more human policing,
targeting all forms of bad driving. It is realised that this has
a cost but when compared with the cost of bad road accident, and
the likely REAL reduction of accident rates that would result,
it will make a lot of sense.
3.1.3 Drivers should NOT be brain-washed
with only the thought that all they must to is drive within speed
limits. This does not make a good, safe driver. They should be
encouraged to actually think about their driving, and be responsible
for errors they may make.
3.1.4 Speed limits must not be set too low.
This only results in general lack of respect for all speed limits.
Many existing limits should be raised. Councils (such as Poole)
should be encouraged to take more care setting permanent and temporary
speed limits. The public should have a way to report incorrect
limits and other problems which is properly managed.
3.1.5 It will help greatly to gain public
support. The public almost universally agree that speed cameras
are only to raise cash. If more money is needed for transport
this should be done with a direct tax. Only speeding which could
in itself actually be dangerous should be automatically enforced.
3.1.6 Much greater effort should be made
to improve road efficiency. Improving driving standards will help
with this. Road works are often carried out clearly with no concern
whatsoever for keeping disruption to reasonable levels. Shorter
journey times will result in less fatigue, lower stress and fewer
accident opportunities.
4. CONCLUSIONS
It really is time for the DfT to start to realise
that a serious change in direction is needed for road safety.
If you simply observe and think as you drive, you will realise
that the opportunities for improved road efficiency and safety
are huge. The "speed kills" policy has gone far too
far, does not work and must be replaced with a credible intelligent
approach which obviously achieves its aims and does not simply
provoke disbelief and outrage. When we have policy which is measured
and motivated by honest results, and not by profit, we will see
huge improvements almost instantly in road safety and efficiency.
Most believe that no-one, not even those in the DfT, honestly
believe current policy is good, but that such has been the support
and growth fuelled by the financial incentives and those dependant
on it, that it's now going to take some serious work and possibly
even embarrassment to correct it. But if improving road safety
is really the aim, this is what is going to have to happen, the
longer it goes on for, the worse it will get.
February 2008
| 
