Memorandum from RoadSafe (RS 42)
RoadSafe is a high level partnership which encourages
innovation and new thinking.
Our mission is to reduce road deaths and injuries
through partnerships between the motor industry and related companies,
traffic engineers, the police, public health authorities and road
safety professionals by promoting the safe design and use of vehicles
and roads and encouraging improved education and innovation.
We fully agree that considerable progress has
been made in reducing the scale of deaths and injuries on the
roads of Great Britain since the publication of Tomorrow's Roads—safer
for everyone in March 2000.
Our evidence is based on the views of a number
of RoadSafe partners who fully support the concept of all stakeholders
working in partnership and cites initiatives which have won recent
Prince Michael Road Safety Awards as examples of innovation: www.roadsafetyawards.com
Our response to specific questions raised follows:
1. To what extent have targets for casualty
reduction been a useful tool for focusing professional activity?
1.1 Whilst we agree that casualty reduction
targets have been a useful tool in tracking progress, the targets
are all too often seen as "government targets" rather
than community targets and so lack a sense of "ownership"
by other important stakeholders; for example the motorcycling
community, whilst keen to assist in reducing casualties took some
time to come together to address this issue—had this community
been given agreed targets set eight years ago this process may
well have been speeded up.
1.2 Whilst there has been some focused activity
resulting in a desire to reduce casualties within certain specific
stakeholder groups such as motorcyclists or children, stakeholders
need to be given a much finer focus and better strategic direction
if we are to achieve the best from the professionals.
One example of this lack of intimate involvement
in the achievement of targets is the vehicle manufacturers who,
although not having specific targets have invested heavily in
casualty reducing technologies.
1.3 A lack of understanding of what is possible
to achieve at local level has led to patchy performance. Some
local authorities have chosen to allocate a proportional reduction
to themselves—in some regions the targets have been met
or even exceeded but in others results have been less satisfactory.
1.4 A lack of in depth understanding of
the real underlying issues has led to a lack of clarity in thinking
through the interventions. Young drivers for instance are always
cited as a particularly vulnerable group, however, whilst research
shows that it is in fact young male drivers who are the main cause
of problems the approaches often being taken to rectify this problem
are insufficiently male specific.
1.5 The science is not yet sufficiently
mature and there is certainly a lack of understanding of how effective
specific interventions can be. Much more could be done to demonstrate
their cost effectiveness eg a roundabout will cost x and reduce
accidents by y.
1.6 This being said, there have been some
good examples of where research has been placed in the public
domain to show that a specific intervention has the ability to
create a specific measurable effect. One was the publication by
DFT of VSRC, Loughborough University vehicle safety research showing
a reduction in non-VRU Accidents if ESC was to be fitted:
| Fatal accidents | 25%
|
| Serious accidents | 11% |
| On wet roads | 22% |
| On snowy roads | 30% |
| Skidding | 33% |
| Rollover | 59% |
| Slight accidents | 6% |
1.7 Such research output is most helpful and should be
more widely used to set detailed targets for stakeholder groups
and to act as catalysts for action.
2. What further measures need to be adopted to reduce
deaths and injuries arising from drinking and driving?
2.1 Since the drink driving laws were introduced, societal
tolerance of drink driving has changed radically for the better.
However, there are still small minorities who blatantly ignore
the law and drive whilst well over the limit. RoadSafe does not
support a further reduction of the blood alcohol limit without
more research into the impact on casualties of those driving whilst
just below the current limit. There would seem little to be gained
from lowering the limit if transgressors who cause casualties
are well over the current limit. Much more should be done to actively
enforce the current limit.
2.2 Employers need to be made much more aware of their
duties and responsibilities; for example if incentives were in
place to make personal breathalysers available to employers during
the party season employee awareness could be raised.
2.3 The drinks and entertainment industry has a responsibility
here and needs to be re-engaged to work closely with government
to identify new approaches. Since the demise of The Portman Group
and the establishment of the DrinkAware Trust the momentum has
been lost.
2.4 The current publicity programme is excellent, but
it needs to be sustained.
3. How does Great Britain compare with other EU countries
in its approach to reducing deaths and injuries?
3.1 We are living off the consequences of past actions
and have failed to bring forward sufficient new initiatives in
recent years. We are losing momentum compared with some other
EU countries and our fatality and injury rate reduction is beginning
to slow. One key point is that we have stopped building the safest
possible roads, especially motorways, and have allowed traffic
to build on A roads, many of which have lower safety standards.
Another factor is the population growth in peri-urban areas, particularly
in SE, which has increased traffic flows on poor quality semi-urban
roads. Contrast this with Sweden's vision zero approach to road
safety management or France's zero tolerance initiative with a
highly active enforcement programme on driver behaviour, and we
are now beginning look quite backward.
4. How do approaches in reductions in risk on the roads
compare to those adopted in other modes of transport?
4.1 This is where the Swedes are showing the way with
their combination of safety functions across all modes of transport.
In UK someone who builds a railway or airport that kills people
is considered culpable, even if the cause of the fatality involves
driver error. However someone who builds a road that kills people
is never challenged—the fatality is considered an "accident".
Steps need to be taken to ensure that engineers work with others.
5. Are there specific blockages caused by shortages of
appropriately trained and skilled staff?
5.1 RoadSafe believes that the country has a shortage
of skilled engineers who understand the full consequences of road
design and therefore too few who are sufficiently innovative to
do more that simply apply some well tried principles and use standard
design features, rather that apply new safety thinking. Some of
the professional institutes recognise this and are making great
strides to improve professional education—Institute of Highway
Incorporated Engineers (IHIE—www.ihie.org.uk) for example
has produced some excellent new guidance on tackling motorcycle
casualties and The Highways Agency (HA) with its Strategic Safety
Action Plan has begun to approach the task of managing its network
as a service to motorists rather than a simple engineering task.
It has made significant progress and the performance of Local
Network Management schemes on trunk roads should be widely publicised
and used as an example to other highways authorities.
5.2 There have been many successful engineering led successes.
5.3 Focusing engineering works at sites with relatively
high casualties has continued to give excellent improvements.
Engineering works have been the main measure used in the 120+
20mph zones in London. A research project has measured the casualties
in these zones and found reductions of 57% in KSI. The casualty
benefits obtained from engineering work is well understood in
London and the £133M spent over the period 1995-2005 is estimated
to give a reduction of around 600KSI a year. Using standard values
for prevention of casualties, the annual savings amount to £134
million.
5.4 Some highly successful local initiatives such as
The Hull City community programme have been successful, but the
"know how" has not been effectively transferred to all
authorities. In a similar way institutions such as Institution
of Highways and Transportation (IHT—www.iht.org.uk) have
produced some excellent engineering guides, but these have not
been universally adopted.
5.5 The narrow professional training of all engineers
involved in transport remains an obstacle to progress; it restricts
their full understanding of wider issues—for example very
few mechanical engineers are ever able to work alongside roads
engineers.
5.6 Working closely with the engineering institutions
and professional associations, Government could substantially
enhance the professional knowledge of engineers and trigger a
much better understanding of what is possible.
5.7 We are fully supportive of the evolution of the new
road safety partnerships, but recommend that their effectiveness
be highlighted with some well conceived publicly available performance
measures.
5.8 We also wish to praise the work of the Think team
and congratulate Government in its commitment to funding a highly
effective public information campaign—well organised centrally
but some local campaigns have been ill considered and are ineffective.
More needs to be done to assist those working at a local level
on road safety to share ideas with others as currently much effort
in innovation is being duplicated. This could be done by creating
a central data base of successful local schemes both at home and
abroad.
5.9 The Fire and Rescue Service has now taken on a role
to educate the public in road safety—although well intentioned,
we believe that the service is poorly resourced for the job and
that Government should invest in better training for the service
to make this valuable resource truly effective.
6. What further policies, not already widely used, might
be considered for adoption and what evidence there is for their
success?
6.1 Currently it is the police who investigate all death
and injury on the road, but the supposition is always that the
fault lies with the road user—little is done to consider
who else may be at fault or at least a contributor to the cause.
6.2 We recommend that transport authorities (councils
and HA) should be held to account for fatalities on their road
systems in the way that railway and airlines operators are held
accountable. All too often these authorities are not involved
in the investigation.
6.3 There should be league tables for road authorities
and employers showing who manages road safety best.
6.4 We would also like to draw committee's attention
to our increasing concerns about road policing. Many commentators
raise concerns about declining driving standards and cite, tail
gating, under-taking and red light running as issues of note.
While there has been some evidence of a gradual improvement in
adherence to speed limits, the focus of police effort onto technology
has been accompanied by reduced presence of police on the roads
and a resulting lack of visual deterrence.
6.5 Every year more than 14,000 road deaths and serious
injuries involve vehicles driven on company business.
The DFT is supporting RoadSafe to deliver the Driving for
Better Business programme www.drivingforbetterbusiness.com to
develop and co-ordinate a network of employers and champions to
promote good practice in order to catalyze a reduction in deaths
and injuries caused by vans and cars used for business purposes.
The business case for adopting good practice is very clear—by
employing sound Work Related Road Safety (WRRS) risk management
systems, companies can increase efficiency, produce better financial
results, improve staff motivation and develop a better corporate
image.
6.6 However to ensure that all businesses adopt best
practice Government should consider incentives for the best and
encourage effective action by HSE against those which fail. Employers
should be held accountable for casualties involving staff while
driving in the same way they are held accountable for casualties
on a work site.
6.7 One of our major concerns is the number of drivers
who still slip beyond the road laws. We believe that it may well
be the case that the recent slowing of the casualty reduction
rates in certain areas is caused in part by an increase in foreign
drivers. The VOSA/Highways Agency initiative to tackle this problem
is welcome but we recommend that Government should be taking a
much more proactive line.
6.8 The number of people who are driving uninsured or
without tax remains unacceptable to the law abiding motorist.
A revised emphasis on better enforcement and improved roads policing
in general would be welcome—insufficient attention is currently
given to traffic violators who become the killers/maimers of others.
6.9 The wider and more aggressive use of ANPR should
be encouraged to tackle these issues—effective operations
such as Manchester's Operation Cheetah which tackles criminal
avoidance of speeding fines should be replicated widely.
7. What should be the priorities for government in considering
further targets for casualty reduction beyond 2010?
7.1 Further investment in safer roads—we know how
to design these and should insist that they are provided.
7.2 Invest in technology. In addition to collision avoidance
technology such as ESC—here EC is considering to mandate
its fitment as standard from 2012. HMG should embrace this and
encourage its fitment as standard before then—in Sweden
fitment is 93% simply because Government insists it is standard
on all its own vehicles—in UK it is fitted to only 45% of
vehicles. The rapid introduction of vehicle active safety systems,
already available on high end production cars such as adaptive
cruise control and pre-safe should certainly form an important
element of the development of targets beyond 2010.
7.3 Much more interactive safety technology will become
available in vehicles and through traffic management systems such
as Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA)—all of which will
have both environmental and safety benefits.
Government should devise ways of providing incentives for
industry and road users to embrace this new technology.
We would be delighted to offer oral evidence or brief the
committee is required.
This submission is made on behalf of RoadSafe and represents
the views of the organisation as a whole.
February 2008
| 
