Memorandum from ITS UK (Intelligent Transport
Society for the United Kingdom) (RS 57)
1. OVERVIEW
1.1 Current Department for Transport (DfT)
2006 statistics suggest that the UK is achieving EU2010 road safety
casualty statistics targets in most areas. However, the increases
in collisions involving pedestrians, motorcyclists and young drivers
(particularly male) contrasts the wider achievements and gives
considerable cause for concern. Inappropriate speed is a recurring
factor and a major contributor in road deaths and serious injury
casualties. Other contributory factors such as driving while under
the influence of drink or drugs, the non-use of mandatory safety
devices such as seatbelts and dangerous or inappropriate driving
behaviour mean that the environment within which road safety professionals
have to operate is both complex and diverse. Further to the associated
costs incurred through trauma treatment and recovery, there are
significant cost implications to UK PLC through traffic disruptions
and congestion.
1.2 Improving road safety has traditionally
focused on the three fundamental areas of "education",
"engineering" and "enforcement". Whilst ITS
UK appreciates it has minimal skills in the first area and that
other organisations are better placed to comment, it considers
that it can comment authoritatively on the other two areas, ie
enforcement and the technology-related aspects of engineering.
The report "Towards Better Transport" published by the
think-tank "Policy Exchange", in association with Serco
and Bevan Brittan LLP, identifies that the UK has the most crowded
and congested roads, the fewest motorways and some of the worst
public transport amongst the leading industrialised countries.
Each year, more than 1.6 million passenger kilometres are travelled
on each kilometre of Britain's road network, more than twice the
European average. However increased traffic flows require efficient
and robust procedures to cope with the "engineering"
and "enforcement" demands that ITS UK considers are
critical to aiding casualty reduction targets. What is also clear
is that technological solutions alone are not the panacea to achieve
the Government's targets; to be most effective they need to be
integrated within a broader package of road safety improvement
measures.
1.3 It is assessed that there are approximately
33 million UK registered vehicles and, in association with additional
road activity (15% increase since 1994-98 baseline average by
road type), has to be balanced against the 11% reduction in roads
policing resources over recent years. The reduction in roads policing
resources comes as a consequence of realigning police service's
core policing functions and has necessitated increased reliance
on the Highways Agency's Traffic Officer Service. The traditional
definition of "engineering" is naturally linked to improving
the road infrastructure itself. However ITS UK proposes broadening
this definition to include the "technological" aspects
of engineering encompassing both roadside and in-vehicle safety
devices.
1.4 "Enforcement" is the reactive
response to offences being committed. Increasingly, enforcement
in all its forms is relying on camera-based technology to record
pertinent details of the offence being committed. This in turn,
then relies on offending drivers and/or passengers being identified
through the accurate detection and interpretation of a vehicle's
registration mark using ANPR technology and subsequent consultation
with the DVLA database. ANPR is a proven technology and has been
used to great effect. However, the Public Accounts Committee report
(2007) suggests that there is increasing VED evasion through deliberately
misrepresented plates thereby reducing the effectiveness of ANPR.
DVLA records are not sufficiently accurate to identify and prosecute
a large number of offenders. This situation is exacerbated by
the increase in vehicles registered outside the UK using roads
in the country for which at the present time, there are no effective
enforcement mechanisms other than stopping the vehicle at the
roadside.
1.5 While threat of prosecution remains
a deterrent for the majority of drivers, an increasing minority
consider themselves to be effectively immune. If this linked to
the reduced numbers of roads policing resources, the need for
ITS enforcement technologies becomes ever more important. Minor
offences remain undetected "opens the door" to a whole
myriad of other, more serious offences such as reckless/dangerous/
careless driving, disqualified driving, no driving licence, no
insurance, no MOT test certificate, etc. While individually these
are important offences, anecdotal evidence suggests that recidivists
routinely commit numerous road traffic offences simultaneously
2. CURRENT SITUATION
2.1 This submission seeks to outline the
current and future technology options that will assist achieving
casualty reduction targets, and irrespective of advice to the
contrary "speed kills" if only because drivers' response
times to an emerging problem is reduced commensurate to the increased
speed involved. In particular ITS UK would like to respond to
the specific issues raised by the Transport Committee as follows:
2.2—Question 1—To what extent have
targets for casualty reduction been a useful tool for focusing
professional activity?
2.2.1 These targets provide an important
guide to ensure that the efforts to reduce death and serious injury
are being tackled in a serious manner. In addition they provide
an insight into the impact of changing trends and allow road safety
improvement efforts to be better targeted. "Tomorrow's
Roads—Safer for Everyone" published in March 2000
show that a quarter of all accidental deaths are the result of
road crashes. This figure rises to 80% of accidental deaths among
young people aged 15-19. This may be attributed to those drivers,
mainly male, who are driving vehicles beyond a) their own personal
and/or b) the vehicles' capabilities. The most recent DfT road
casualty statistics (2006) reinforce this alarming rise in the
deaths and serious injuries and also highlights increased fatalities
and injuries of motor cyclists and pedestrians. If deployed correctly,
technology can be used to collect safety-related data which is
invaluable to road safety professionals. For example, the findings
of the EU-funded "Project Veronica" recommend that on-board
"black-box" recorders be fitted to vehicles as standard
equipment. is would They provide real data to allow road safety
experts to have a greater understanding of collisions and to help
target their responses to address the real risks and the real
risk-takers.
2.3—Question 2—What further measures
need to be adopted to reduce deaths and injuries arising from
drinking and driving?
2.3.1 Fitting commercially-available "alcolok"
devices that require a driver to undertake a breath test are a
means to prevent drink/drive offences. Whilst this is a step in
the right direction, these devices can be circumvented and other
more sophisticated in-vehicle sensors that can detect drink, drugs
and biometric responses that override potential human intervention
are preferable. Roadside drink/drug testing devices are being
developed with a pilot study being undertaken in three police
forces; they are in their infancy but will prove more objective
that the current subjective Field Impairment Test. However roadside
drugs testing does present a dilemma as drivers may have taken
prohibited (ie illegal) substances and/or legally prescribed medication
and/or alcohol. During recent research a large number of volunteers,
who were known to have consumed alcohol, admitted consuming a
"cocktail" of drugs; one respondent admitted taking
six drug types within 48 hours. Prosecuting prohibited substances
is easier to manage as the legislation is in place however the
latter category will be far more challenging. Although this is
a sweeping generality prohibited substances are more likely to
be taken by younger age groups whereas prescribed drugs are more
likely to be taken by older drivers. The latter medication groups
may cause impairment without the drivers themselves being aware
of the impact.
2.4—Question 3—How does Great Britain
compare with other EU countries in its approach to reducing deaths
and injuries?
2.4.1 The UK has always taken a proactive
approach to the reduction of deaths and serious injuries on UK
roads and has been at the forefront of initiatives to reduce road
casualties. However, this position has changed in recent years
and the UK now lies "fourth in the league table". The
UK needs to be aware of other nations' road safety strategies
and be prepared to examine and where appropriate, adopt proven
technological solutions. As an example, from a technological,
operational and procurement perspective, the network-wide roll-out
of Section Control in the Netherlands may have a beneficial influence
the expansion of Active Traffic Management schemes across strategic
parts of the UK's motorways.
2.4.2 It is also important to recognise
two emerging "international" themes. First, the requirement
and marketplace for ITS technologies is becoming increasingly
global. Second, the UK's road safety problems are not unique.
Considered together, this means that other nations are likely
to have experienced similar problems to the UK and may have deployed
technological solutions to help address them. Continuity in international
"cooperation" will help UK PLC learn from others' experiences
and where necessary, "influence" the development of
legislation and agreements that could ultimately enhance the effectiveness
of technology as a road safety enabler.
2.5—Question 4—How do approaches in
reductions in risk on the roads compare to those adopted in other
modes of transport?
2.5.1 It is fair to say that the public
perception of road casualties is "it is one of those things".
Compare the publicity surrounding air and rail collisions such
as the recent crash landing of the BA flight at Heathrow and the
Virgin Pendelino train crash in Cumbria. The former collision
caused 17 minor injuries and the latter one person was killed
and five were seriously injured whereas road deaths average nine
persons killed and seventy nine severely injured per day. For
very obvious and correct reasons rail and air collisions and incidents
are subject to considerably more stringent investigations than
road collisions however consideration should be given to a similar
approach being addressed. The ACPO Road Death Investigation manual
has proved invaluable in ensuring that all road deaths are investigated
to fully determine the cause of the collision. The Corporate Manslaughter
Act, when legislated, may have an influence on how organisations
respond to the implications of being prosecuted for actions that
cause collisions.
2.6—Question 5—Are there specific
blockages caused by shortages of appropriately trained and skilled
staff?
2.6.1 As previously mentioned there has
been an 11% reduction of roads policing officers in recent years
through a reallocation of resources to other core-policing roles.
The lack of roads policing resource presence, and potential prosecution
threat, has resulted in a general diminution of driving standards.
The introduction of Highway Agency Traffic Officers service has
assisted with road management issues however their limited powers
and anecdotal evidence suggests there is a lack of public compliance
to their directions. A recent court case highlighted this problem
and set the precedence when a driver was prosecuted, and fined
heavily, for failing to conform to the directions of a Traffic
Officer. Shortages of appropriately trained and skilled staff
are being supplemented by network monitoring of CCTV and ANPR
systems at the Highways Agency's national and regional Traffic
Control Centres by private sector staff releasing public sector
employees to concentrate on their core duties and responsibilities
to minimise road casualties.
2.7—Question 6—What further policies,
not already widely used, might be considered for adoption and
what evidence there is for their success?
2.7.1 Various engineering and enforcement
technologies options, such as Intelligent Speed Adaptation and
Electronic Vehicle Identification; are available and can assist
in reducing road casualties; however their deployment has to be
assessed in conjunction with the public support/antipathy/opposition
that they introduce. Enforcement is achieved through a diverse
range of technologies and methodologies. Deployments range from
local, isolated safety camera installations through to route-
or city-wide deployments and large-scale back office operations.
From an organisational perspective, much has been gained through
the establishment of Road Safety Camera Partnerships. The degree
to which the new safety camera funding arrangements will allow
this progress to continue remains to be seen.
2.7.2 Throughout the UK these cameras provoke
emotive responses and animosity from road users who, in general
terms, feel they are unfairly prosecuted. This is an important
issue as enforcement technologies will remain a permanent feature.
Historically, this has resulted in some drivers seeing themselves
as being persecuted by the police service whom they accuse of
"seeking `soft' performance indicator targets". However
there is scope for a proactive education of road users about the
purposes of enforcement rather than merely relying on responses
to media challenges and this needs to be considered within the
context of enforcement methodologies, equipment, standards and
techniques currently employed by various law enforcement agencies
that extends to include the private sector industry. This issue
is of fundamental importance to the ongoing use and public-acceptability
of enforcement technology which will remain a permanent feature
at the roadside. There is real scope for a more proactive education
of road users about the purpose of enforcement rather than relying
on responses to challenges set by the media. This needs to be
considered within the context of enforcement methodologies, equipment,
standards and techniques currently employed by various law enforcement
agencies that extends to include the private sector industry.
2.7.3 Reliable and volume enforcement capabilities
are essential with current and future technologies, such as ANPR
and EVI, enabling a greater automated enforcement capability.
The BERR Technology Strategy Board has recently funded a project
that will provide the necessary research and development that
will enable the integration of enforcement technology into the
existing traffic signal infrastructure that will potentially provide
a more cost effective platform and "lock in" the value
of existing investment. Stringent evidential recording requirements
defined through Home Office guidance has enabled the acceptance
of images and associated data from digital Road safety camera
equipment as evidence in the prosecution of road traffic law offences
has greatly assisted the criminal enforcement process Criminal
enforcement is being increasingly supplemented by a civil enforcement
requirement from Local Traffic Authorities in meeting the requirements
of the Traffic Management Act to regulate traffic flow in urban
bus lanes, red routes, box junction and "red light"
camera sites and enforcement by LTAs supported by commercial sector
organisations; all of which contribute positively in reducing
road casualties.
2.7.4 Enforcement also has to be fair to
all road users, regardless of where the live, work or where their
vehicle is registered. The VERA projects funded by the European
Commission have shown that attempts to impose and enforce penalties
on non-resident violators raise many legal, organisational and
operational issues. Even where non-resident violators can be taken
through a formal legal process, penalties can rarely be enforced.
This is not just a UK problem—it is an issue all EU Member
States have to address. In addition to the negative impacts on
traffic safety, this contradicts the principles of fairness and
equal treatment of all European citizens as enshrined in the Treaty
and is not sustainable in the long-term. Government support will
be required for the pan-EU legislation necessary to address this.
2.7.5 The UK's "Speed limit" database
is due for completion this year however it is difficult to keep
pace with regular changes through new road building programmes,
redesignating of certain urban 30 mph speed limits to 20, 40 and
50 mph variations. Nevertheless completion of the database is
crucial to emerging technologies such as Intelligent Speed Adaptation
that is capable of providing road speed limit information to drivers
thereby enabling them to modify their speed. Even in its simplest
form will be able to offer advice to drivers so that they have
the opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly. Given the
potential impact this kind of technology could have, the results
of the forthcoming DfT ISA trial will be viewed with interest.
2.7.6 Road workers deaths cause considerable
controversy as essential work has to be undertaken in extremely
hazardous circumstances. However prolonged road works require
speed control to be managed and enforced and the common complaint
of motorists is that "no work is being done". This leads
to a general lack of compliance and rigorous enforcement is seen
to be disproportionate and unfair. One of the means to reduce
that danger is to reduce the speeds of vehicles travelling in
those areas. "Spot" camera prosecution is perceived
as "unfair" and akin to persecution by the police service
seeking "soft" performance indicator targets. More intelligent
camera deployment, using "average speed" cameras and
responsive "signing" has proven to be effective. Unlike
"spot" cameras motorists recognise that they must moderate
their speeds over a distance. This is often supported by speed
awareness signs that reinforce and advise. In much the same way
"variable speed limits" have proved their worth, eg
M25 and M42 ATM, and there is a general recognition that slower
but free-flowing travel prevents frustration and avoids motorists
"taking a chance" with the often tragic consequence.
2.7.7 The UK's adoption of the "eCall"
capability, currently under review by DfT, would enable on-board
sensors to detect a substantial impact whereby the occupants may
be rendered unconscious and automatically summons assistance from
the emergency services. Medical evidence proves that prompt trauma
treatment in, what is referred to as the "golden hour",
has significant impact on the reduction of injury severity.
2.8—Question 7—What should be the
priorities for government in considering further targets for casualty
reduction beyond 2010?
2.8.1 Technological developments will continue
apace and the government should be invited to consider the impact
that ITS technologies can bring to aid casualty reduction targets.
One of the major areas that needs to be considered is the education
of all road users. There is a general deterioration of driving
standards and there is minimal post-driving test education. Drivers,
particularly young drivers, exhibit poor driving manners and a
lack of adherence to the principles of the Highway Code. A general
malaise of driving standards and skills may be attributed to an
attitude of "It's my road—I pay for it and I can do
as I like" and any perceived interference through enforcement
is seen as an intrusion into the inalienable "right"
to drive as one feels. However there are technical means that
can detect poor driving standards and attitudes. Vehicles can
be equipped with sophisticated sensors that determine differences
in driving styles that can be detected, stored and then relayed
to the relevant body—eg a poor or aggressive driving style
will be reflected in "pay as you drive" insurance premiums.
Motor manufacturers routinely download stored driving information
or receive this data in "real-time". Inappropriate driving
behaviour can be readily identified and attributed to individual
driving styles and the potential to develop of "intelligent"
sensors that could detect drivers making illegal mobile telephone
calls or sending text messages would further aid the reduction
of collisions and casualties. It can be seen that these developments
are only a short step to determining the drivers' identities;
a useful function when young drivers may be subject to an insurance
curfew, thus enabling education and/or enforcement solutions.
3. SUMMARY
3.1 Not all drivers have intuitive or instinctive
motoring skills nor possess a ready understanding, acceptance
and adoption of technological complexities that may be demanded
on rare occasions under exceptional situations Considerable studies
have been conducted into the "Human-Machine Interface"
to investigate and avoid driver "information overload"
therefore the introduction of any new system that enhances any
contribution to safer journeys should be supported. However the
previously registered concerns and reservations must acknowledge
there is a limited human interest, enthusiasm and intention to
maintain, upgrade and monitor "on-board" equipment to
its highest standard therefore compliance is required. Compliance
through enforcement has traditionally fallen within the police
service's remit however the sheer scale of requirement means that
the vast majority of offences must be detected using modern electronic
technologies that are inherently more efficient than previous
methods of enforcing road traffic offences.
3.2 The recent EU "PReVENT" project
exhibition showcased a range of intelligent technologies to enhance
journey safety and security and capitalised on the cumulative
expertise and comprehensive capabilities needed to help achieve
the EU's 2010 casualty reduction targets. Generically these technologies
incorporated lane deviation, vehicle proximity, collision avoidance
and ADAS, and in certain instances these systems were sufficiently
"intelligent" to prioritise and provoke the vehicle
to respond to the most significant threat. As its title suggests
the PReVENT technologies anticipate road conditions and circumstances
as well as monitoring driver actions and reactions and advise
on impending incidents and in critical situations can "assume
vehicle control" and take avoiding and/or mitigating action.
"Assuming vehicle control" at certain these critical
times presents an interesting proposition as this could enable
a driver to offer a legitimate defence in any court proceedings
contesting that control was wrested from his/her control thereby
preventing a wholly different and deliberate reaction. Furthermore
there are concerns that sophisticated technologies may further
insulate drivers from the "driving experience" and compound
driver inattention "behind the wheel" through increased
distraction from variety of "infotainment" devices.
Current indemnities may prove inadequate especially where a particular
technology assumes a "guardian angel" role, such as
one PReVENT technology proclaims. A balance has to be struck between
the roles and responsibilities of vehicle manufacturing/OEM industry
and what government agencies can achieve. For example is it reasonable
to legislate which safety equipment new vehicles should be fitted
as standard equipment or should it solely left to market forces?
3.3 In terms of the safety of commercial
vehicle transport, there are technological ways that can ensure
road user safety such as a further roll-out of WASP/VIPER "weigh-in-motion"
systems, enforcement of driving and resting times using digital
tachograph systems and ensuring that "haulier offences"
that are committed in one Member State can be taken into account
in the "home" country when issuing, renewing or revoking
operator licenses, etc. The latter is currently being examined
in a new EU-funded project called TUNER. Such measures would reduce
the numbers of, unqualified drivers and disreputable operators
from the road and would have a marked impact on the numbers of
unroadworthy vehicles.
4. CONCLUSION
4.1 In conclusion, this submission seeks
to highlight existing road safety problems and dilemmas and offers
current and future technological solutions that may assist. The
Intelligent Transport Society for the United Kingdom through its
interest groups, members and industry links is ideally placed
to provide independent expert advice into the effectiveness of
ITS technologies and welcomes further opportunities to assist
the Transport Committee in this process.
February 2008
FOUNDATION MEMBERS
| Alcatel Amey Infrastructure Services Atkins Transport Systems Atos Origin BT Capita Symonds Civica Department for Regional Development Department for Transport
| Department of Trade & Industry Essex County Council FaberMaunsell Glasgow City Council Highways Agency IBI Group innovITS JourneyPlan Mott MacDonald Ltd Mouchel Parkman Services Ltd
| QinetiQ Ltd Real Fleet Ltd RedSpeed International Scottish Executive Serco Integrated Transport Transport for London TRL Ltd University of Southampton Welsh Assembly Government WSP
|
CORPORATE MEMBERS
ACIS ACPO ITS Working Group AGD Systems Ltd Ankerbold International Ltd Appian Technology Applied Traffic BAA Plc Babtie Group Barco Limited Barlow Lyde & Gilbert Brighton & Hove City Council Bristol City Council Cambridge Consultants Ltd Cardiff County Council Carl Bro Centaur Consulting City of Edinburgh Council Computer Recognition Systems Ltd ConsultingStream Ltd DAR Consultants (UK) Ltd Densitron Ferrograph Limited Derwent CCTV Ltd Dundee City Council EC Harris e-Plate Ltd ESYS Plc Golden River Traffic Ltd Halcrow Hampshire County Council (ITS Group) Home Office Scientific Development Branch (HOSDB) Hyder Consulting Ltd Ian Catling Consultancy Ian Routledge Consultancy
| IDT Ltd Imperial College Initial Electronic Security Systems Integrate Systems Engineering ITIS Limited JAI UK Ltd Kapsch TrafficCom Lancashire County Council Last Mile Communications Leicester City Council Liverpool City Council—2020 Liverpool Ltd LogicaCMG Marconi Transportation MATTISSE Consortium Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority Merseytravel (Passenger Transport Executive) Met Office MIRA Ltd mm02Plc National Car Parks Ltd Navteq Norfolk County Council Norwich Union Insurance NTL Ordnance Survey Parsons Brinckerhoff Peek Traffic Ltd Peter Brett Associates PIPS Technology Limited Police Service of Northern Ireland Rapp Trans (UK) Ltd RBS Insurance
| SciSys Scott Wilson Sheffield City Council Siemens Traffic Controls Ltd Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Ltd Southampton City Council Speedcheck Services Ltd Systems Engineering and Assessment Ltd Techspan Systems Ltd Telenor Connect A/S Tenet Technology Ltd Thales Telecom Services Trafficlink (UK) Ltd Trafficmaster plc Transpomatica Consultants Ltd Transport Technology Consultants TSEU Ltd Tyco Integrated Systems Ltd University College Dublin University of Leeds University of Newcastle upon Tyne Variable Message Signs Ltd Vehicle & Operator Services Agency (VOSA) Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council Warrington Borough Council West Yorkshire PTE White Willow Consulting White Young Green ZenSar (UK) Ltd
|
ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
| BIFA (British International Freight Association BMF (British Motorcyclists Federation) CSI Dornier Consulting GmbH Dublin Transportation Office Efkon AG European Secure Vehicle Alliance (ESVA)
| IET Institution of Highways & Transportation ITSO Ltd Mapflow Ltd Oracle Network PACTS (Parliamentary Adv. Council for Transport Safety Pinpoint Faraday Partnership Q-Free Tolling AS
| Richmond Management Group RNIB Royal Institute of Navigation Skills for Logistics Smartex Ltd University of Westminster Vitronic
|
| | | |
| 
