Memorandum from Barbara Davy (RS 40)
(a) Targets for the reduction of accidents
have been a useful tool in focusing minds on the problem, however,
surely it is appropriate that improved road safety is at the top
of the agenda at all times and that all efforts should be concentrated
in that direction.
(b) In order to reduce road deaths and injuries
arising from drink-driving and drug taking—alco-locks should
be considered. Most European countries have an alcohol limit of
0.5, in Norway it is 0.1, our limit should be reduced. It should
also be understood that Police can breathalyse drivers as they
leave pubs, clubs and other licensed premises.
With regard to other forms of transport I think
it is true to say that there is a complete ban on alcohol for
bus drivers, train drivers and pilots as they are responsible
for the safety of their passengers. As driving a car is the most
dangerous thing any of us do on a regular basis and is implicated
in the highest percentage of accidental deaths in any form of
transport perhaps a total alcohol ban should be considered.
(c) The European approach seems to be focused
on a better sharing of urban space, such as clearly marked speed
reductions at town gateways which pertain until you leave the
town ie pedestrians and other road users have equal or even superior
status within towns and cities—motorists are frequently
encouraged to comply by a change of road surface and layout. Heavy
on-the-spot fines, license or car confiscation are common methods
of enforcing the law.
1. ATTITUDES
TO DRIVING
Our greatest difficulty in reducing deaths and
injuries is in changing the attitude of the media, motor manufacturers,
motoring journalists and hence the driver, towards the issue of
speed.
Inappropriate speed in combination with any
other driving error is potentially dangerous. We cannot instantly
(or ever) improve driver intelligence, we cannot make all drivers
courteous, considerate or careful—would that we could—but
we can control speeds, which would ameliorate all other damaging
behaviour.
We live in a culture of speed generated by motor
manufacturers—for profit,—motoring journalists—who
write for those addicted to speed,—and the media who seem
to forgo their responsibilities and common sense with regard to
road safety in favour of excitement, sensationalism and ratings.
2. THE MEDIA
The visual media has enormous power to influence
behaviour—witness the "Delia" effect. Car adverts,
both on TV and in print, are totally unrealistic—portraying
drivers on empty roads with clouds of dust and spraying water,
speed as exciting, male dominated, sexually attractive, for the
wealthy and the high flyer, there is no balance.
Cigarettes now carry a compulsory health warning—why
not insist that all adverts for cars, both in the press on TV
and in the cinema, carry a visual image of UK speed limits.
Having written to the BBC on several occasions
expressing concerns that "Top Gear" glorified and glamorized
speed, I was told that it did not! My faith in the integrity of
BBC is now somewhat diminished.
My five year old grandson having seen trailers
for various programmes has, sadly, already concluded that having
a crash in which a vehicle explodes is "fun". Clearly,
indoctrination by visual image starts at an early impressionable
age.
Mrs Dunwoody wrote to me on 17 October 2006
quoting from "Road Traffic Speed" printed 13 June 2002,
the section "The media and the motor industry":
"The failure to take road safety in general
and speed in particular seriously has important effects. We would
have expected campaigns to be mounted to reduce so tragic and
avoidable form of death and serious injury. There are many opportunities
for all parts of the media to do this; unfortunately, some elements
in the press do the reverse; they rail against the very measures
designed to reduce speed and save lives. The evidence to this
inquiry shows that there are serious concerns about the link between
motor industry advertising and journalism. We are also concerned
that the BBC has done so little to promote road safety in pursuance
of its general public service obligation".
Voicing my concerns about this aspect of the
media to my MP, I was assured several years ago that Lord Whitty
was hoping to meet with media representatives to address this
problem. I was told to expect further information about this meeting.
Did it ever take place?
Even programmes that purport to show speeding
being addressed by the Police are really nothing more than adrenalin
fuelled car chases, cops and robber style that have little value
in promoting road safety, but rather glorify the bad boy image
of "joy riders".
Rather gruesomely, the BBC used to announce
the number of road deaths during Bank Holidays—unpleasant
maybe, but a salutary reminder of our mortality. I believe this
still happens every week in Australia, why not here?
The BBC claim that road safety programmes would
be dull, but it shouldn't be beyond their wit to make them otherwise
nor should ratings should not take precedence over road safety.
I consider the BBC to be a dereliction of duty
in its public service obligation.
3. MOTOR MANUFACTURERS
It seems the financial security of the motor
industry takes precedence over road safety in some quarters. I
am not sure their unhelpful stance deserves such support, for
example despite the contra indications such as national well-being
and safety, shortage of road and parking space, fuel consumption
and pollution, they persist in building and promoting faster,
bigger, heavier vehicles with little thought for the disastrous
effects.
Simon Brown QC, Crown Office Chambers, wrote
to the Daily Telegraph—9 June 2004 . . .
"Second, at the risk of being called a kill-joy,
it really must be said that all motor vehicles now made are "not
fit for purpose" in the sense that they all have engine capacities
permitting—indeed, encouraging—the driver to exceed
the maximum speed limits. In fact, many seem to be designed for
other purposes, such as off-road driving or racing. It has become
virtually impossible for anyone to drive at 70 mph on a motorway
without being consigned to the slow lane with another vehicle
tailgating. Cars are machines. In factories, machines are restricted
to protect their operators. Why are cars any different?"
. . .
Christopher Macgowan, Chief Executive of the
Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Ltd, replied . . .
"It is true that, for many owners, the appeal
of a new car lies in its ability to be tested off-road. They can
dive at speed under the supervision of experts at track days throughout
the country".
Further . . .
"Speed limits vary from country to country.
In the global automotive industry, a car made in one market may
well be destined for several others. Limiting speed is impractical
for the industry and also undesirable for the vast majority of
drivers".
This seems to me a specious reply and totally
unacceptable. In essence we all pay for excess speed capability
we cannot legally use and suffer the misery generated by speeding,
in order that some drivers can indulge in a minority sport and
others can drive at speed on German autobahns, in Nepal or the
Isle of Man where there are no speed limits. Thus the safety of
all other road users is compromised for a few stretches of tarmac.
This attitude, by motor manufacturers is further
explained in correspondence I had with Adrian Hobbs then Secretary
General of Euro NCAP who wrote to me on 21 May 2005:
"With regard to the attitude of car manufacturers,
I have a long history of involvement with them, often in situations
where they are defending their position. Car manufacturers, like
any other manufacturer, are in the business of making money. They
can be expected to do those things which help them to sell cars.
It is very difficult to get them to regulate themselves. Provided
that the public want fast cars they will provide them.
You might be interested to learn that, within
The European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), we are
looking at ways to encourage manufacturers to fit drive activated
speed limitation devices to new cars. It will then be for drivers
to show that they will use such devices. It remains to be seen
how successful this action will be in reducing road accidents".
4. CURRENT PROBLEMS
As Chairman of a local road safety group that
has tried since 2001 (personally, I've been trying since 1974!)
to reduce speeding within our town, we have virtually come to
the end of the line with very little positive result. Every local
provincial newspaper has reports of residents trying to find ways
to reduce speeding, many utterly disillusioned with current speed
control methods.
We have written to, contacted or lobbied:
The Police Our local Highway Authority.
Local road safety officers Local Taxi Authority.
Our MP Our local Councillors.
Our Metropolitan Councillors.
The Department for Transport—on many occasions.
We have raised a petition, we have taken part
in Camera Partnership broadcasts, we have produced wheelie bin
stickers, newsletter and car stickers and have become Police volunteers
for a local Speed Watch group.
We have repeatedly been told by the DfT that
measures are available to prevent speeding and yet we have had
to "fight" all the way to get even moderate traffic
calming ... it covers only a few hundred yards of two local roads
... it does not solve the problem.
5. INTELLIGENT
SPEED ADAPTATION
ISA—TACKLE SPEEDING
WHERE IT
BEGINS—WITHIN
THE VEHICLE
Research has been done at Leeds University.
"Contributory factors to road accidents 2005 DfT, 2006",
states our local Safety Camera Newsletter, West Yorkshire Casualty
Reduction Partnership: estimated its use on UK vehicles could
reduce road deaths by 59%.
If this is the case, it is difficult to see
how any Government conscious of its duty of care to the public
can fail to insist on its implementation as with seat belts and
the breathalyzer.
Rosie Winterton and Jim Fitzpatrick have both
told me that this system must be "consumer led"—why?
It seems iniquitous. A life saving measure of such potential magnitude
would be made mandatory in any other form of transport. Naturally
it would have to be "sold" to the public, but the advantages
of in-car speed control are manifold.
Motor manufacturers would then be under the
same obligation as other machine makers to ensure their products
were fit and safe for purpose.
Speed cameras and costly unsightly traffic calming
that despoils our landscape would be redundant. Those who have
previously claimed that "law-abiding" motorists are
being unfairly persecuted would have no further cause for complaint.
ISA would be an aid to all those who genuinely want to drive within
posted limits.
Lives would be saved as young, inexperienced
drivers would not be able to "show off" by speeding—it
all too often results in death or injury. No more "joy-riding".
Car theft would be reduced. The criminal get-away car would be
a thing of the past.
It would be an opportunity to overhaul, simplify
and standardize speed limits where necessary. Speeds could be
controlled on all roads, at present thousands of miles
of rural roads where most fatal accidents occur are without protection.
We now have huge advances in technology to make
our roads and vehicles safer. We must embrace them.
6. SAFETY IN
URBAN SPACES
If we could separate pedestrians and cyclists
from motorized transport many lives could be saved and the quality
of life in general would improve. We have far too few cycle ways
and pedestrian priority areas.
7. QUALITY OF
LIFE
One further point, irrespective of accidents,
it is traffic speeds that cause most distress in urban areas.
Loss of amenity, the devaluation of roadside properties, noise
and pollution now feature highly on a list of complaints. These
have to be addressed.
February 2008
| 
